Hebrews Lesson 145 January 29,
2008
NKJ Psalm 119:105 Your word is
a lamp to my feet And a light to my path.
Hebrews 9. Last time we came up to
about verse 11. But I want to go back and give us a little review because it’s actually
been about 4 weeks I think since our last session on January 1st. In
between I was in Kiev. By the way I do have some pictures of the trip to Kiev.
I’m trying to dig around and find them. One I had of Igor and Julia. As soon as
I get that located and posted up on the website, then we’ll send out the link
to that and everybody can see the pictures from my two weeks there.
Okay, review. One thing that we
looked at was the procedures on the Day of Atonement. More and more I’m
appreciating all that is in the Mosaic Law in relation to these rituals and
realizing how we have not always done our homework in trying to understand all
these details because there is this sort of mentality that somehow: that’s in
the Old Testament or it’s in the Law and so it’s no longer as important or as
relevant or as significant for us. But it really is because God is picturing a
lot of the different dimensions and facets to salvation and to the spiritual
life in those Old Testament sacrifices and in the Old Testament ritual. Then
when you get into the New Testament, especially in Hebrews, the writer of
Hebrews is unpacking that imagery and that symbolism for us so that gives us a
better understanding of who Jesus Christ is and what He did. It’s not just a
matter of explaining the historical events of the cross or explaining the
theological significance of those events for our salvation; but it’s all
incorporated within a future perspective.
If you open your Bibles to Hebrews
9, just look down at verse 28. We’re not going to get there probably for at
least two or three more weeks. But as we come to the conclusion to this
instructional or doctrinal section before we go on into the application section
starting in chapter 10; the sort of conclusion that he comes to is in verse 28.
NKJ Hebrews 9:28 so Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many.
To those who eagerly wait for Him
That is a future orientation that
what he’s going through here and all that he’s been covering in this section
starting back in chapter 7 dealing with the Melchizedekean priesthood, dealing
with the new priesthood in Christ, the change of covenant, the fulfillment of
the Old Testament types in the priesthood of Christ and the New Covenant, and
then on into chapter 9 dealing with the significance of the tabernacle worship
and the rituals and how that’s fulfilled in Christ; all of that really is
oriented to the future. It’s not just history. It’s not just nice information
that we need to learn. It’s all oriented toward that future return of Christ.
To those who
eagerly wait for Him He will appear a second time, apart from sin, for
salvation.
There’s that word soterion
which has to do not just with justification-salvation at the cross, which we
refer to as phase 1 salvation; but it is looking forward to phase 3 salvation
and the completion of God’s salvation plan for not only mankind but also in
terms of the redemption of the universe as per Romans 8. So keep in mind that as we go through
this, it’s oriented to understand the past that we can orient more to our
future destiny.
Now we looked at the procedures on
the Day of Atonement. I talked about the fact that the key idea in the word
atonement isn’t just reconciliation or at-one-ment, which the English word
would seem to communicate. But it is a broad enough word to where it
incorporates all the different doctrines related to redemption (That is
substitution in the blood sacrifice), propitiation (the application of the
blood to the mercy seat and the satisfaction of God’s justice and righteousness), forgiveness (That is in the objective
sense of forgiveness - the wiping out or the canceling of the debt of sin as we
saw again in our study Sunday morning in Colossians 2:13-14), also expiation. All
of this is tied up in that word for atonement.
We saw that on the Day of Atonement
the High Priest did three things. There were the sacrifices for himself and his
family – that is the Levites so that he could be cleansed to perform the
service on that particular day. Following that, there was the sacrifice of the
sin offering and the burnt offering and the splattering of the blood from the
sin offering on the mercy seat and in front of the mercy seat depicting
propitiation, and then the identification of sin with the scapegoat (the taking
of the two goats). One would be sacrificed and the other was taken off out into
the wilderness picturing that complete removal of sin that takes place with the
canceling of sin on the cross. So those are the procedures on the Day of
Atonement, which we have to keep in mind.
The second thing we emphasized is
that redemption is used in two senses just like forgiveness is and they’re tied
together. I keep going over this and some of you (maybe all of you) have
snapped to this very quickly; but I’ve had a number of conversations with
pastors who are trying to communicate this as well and it’s a new thought that
redemption means payment of a price. We’re so ingrained in terms of thinking of
forgiveness only in the second sense of fellowship and that removal of personal
animosity or the breach of rapport, the breakdown of a relationship, that we
have lost sight of the fact that a core meaning to the word forgiveness is to
wipe out something, to just erase it. So it’s used in an economic sense, and so
redemption is viewed as an economic term (the payment of the penalty), and
forgiveness (is the cancellation of that penalty). That’s the core value of the
idea of forgiveness whether you’re talking about the Greek word aphesis which
we looked at Sunday morning, or its parallel karidzomai which is used in passages
like the parable in Luke 7 which deals with the forgiveness of the debt.
So those are both used in economic
context. So there’s an objective sense that Christ pays the legal penalty on
the cross. That legal penalty is what God assessed in the Garden of Eden when
He told Adam and Eve:
NKJ Genesis 2:17 "but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not
eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die."
That is the legal penalty. All the
other things that are mentioned in chapter 3 are consequences including
physical death. But Jesus pays that objective penalty on the cross and then
redemption (as well as forgiveness) is used in a subjective individual sense
when a person trusts in Christ. When they trust in Christ then they are said to
be redeemed because they are realizing that in their own experience and they
are forgiven positionally.
Then we also talked about the third
sense of forgiveness, which is forgiven experientially in relationship to God.
So we talked about redemption in those two senses.
This really comes out of
understanding Colossians 2:13-14.
NKJ Colossians 2:13 And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your
flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having
Causal participle there –
because.
forgiven you
all trespasses,
This occurred at the cross.
NKJ Colossians 2:14 having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us,
which was contrary to us. And He has taken it
That is the certificate of debt
out of the way,
having nailed it
Participle of means
to the cross.
That last phrase shows us that this
happened historically at the cross. It’s a judicial action so we could refer to
this as judicial forgiveness that happens at the cross for every human being so
that sin isn’t the issue anymore. The issue is going to be Jesus Christ.
The third thing we have emphasized
is that the purchase price, the price of forgiveness, is blood, which is a
figure of speech for death. We have blood standing for physical death, the
shedding of blood standing for physical death. Then that in turn stands for
spiritual death. We saw that it is referred to as a double metonymy or a
metalepsis. It’s a figure of speech. It doesn’t take away from the reality or
the necessity of Christ’s physical death; but the key element in satisfying
God’s justice was that spiritual separation from the Father between 12 noon and
3 pm when God the Father imputes to Jesus Christ all the sins of the world. It
doesn’t mean that Jesus becomes a sinner. But He becomes sin legally, i.e.
imputed to Him, but His righteous status is never experientially changed. He
doesn’t become a sinner. He just becomes sin: that imputation of our sin to Him
in a legal transaction that takes place on the cross.
So these are three things that we
have to keep in mind as we go through this whole latter section because it’s
built – all of this from verse 11 down into - probably down to 10, close
to 10:18. We’re going to be dealing with these concepts. We have these terms
like remission of sin and redemption and covenant and blood. Again and again
and again these terms are mentioned. So we have to understand them
The next thing I did last time was
based on verse 8 (the Holy Spirit indicating that this shows progressive
revelation) the Holy Spirit indicating this that the way into the holiest of
all was not yet made clear or manifest while the first tabernacle was still
standing. In other words there’s a progression of revelation that occurs such
that Old Testament saints in key areas did not understand things the way they
were understood later. There is a progress in revelation. That doesn’t change anything. Later
revelation doesn’t change earlier revelation; it unpacks it. It gives clarity
to it, focus to it; but it doesn’t change what was previously said.
So we took a good look at that. Now
verse 9 says:
NKJ Hebrews 9:9 It was symbolic
That is the ritual in the
Tabernacle.
for the present
time in which both gifts and sacrifices are offered which cannot make him who
performed the service perfect in regard to the conscience –
Now what that word “perfect” is one
that we have to understand; and it doesn’t have the idea of flawlessness. This
word group (I think I have it in a slide a little later on because the word
shows up again) that is translated “perfect” is a group of words that occur—you
have the verb teleio;
you have the noun form telos, another noun form telios. These words with one possible exception
never refer to a qualitative state of flawless; and yet that’s how
traditionally the word has been understood. It really has the idea of
completion of wholeness, more of a quantitative sense than a qualitative sense.
It is not talking about perfect versus imperfect. It is talking about complete.
So the sacrifices are incomplete. They are not flawed in a sense of sin. They
are not ineffectual. There is a
degree of significance to them. They do accomplish something.
And so the writer of Hebrews says in
verse 9:
NKJ Hebrews 9:9 It was symbolic for the present time in which both gifts and
sacrifices are offered which cannot make him who performed the service perfect
in regard to the conscience –
I made the point last time that this
is a present tense action here. Now the writer of Hebrews is writing this to a
group of probably former Jewish priests, Levites who have become believers and
have gone through (as we will see in the next chapter) persecution, rejection,
hostility because they have accepted Jesus as the Messiah. They have left the
whole temple worship but now they’re thinking about going back.
Well in verse 9, the writer of
Hebrews doesn’t say that these current gifts and sacrifices that are going on
the Temple are irrelevant. He's not saying that they’re no good. It’s not
saying that they have no meaning or purpose, which would be a great opportunity
for him to do so. He says they were symbolic. That is the Old Testament sacrifices were symbolic for the
present time.
in which
That is in the present time.
both gifts and
sacrifices are offered
He’s not talking necessarily about
sacrifices related to salvation. I think of Paul. When Paul goes to Jerusalem
and he has made a vow and he’s going to bring his sacrifices. That vow
sacrifice had nothing to do with depicting salvation or seen as a violation of
his understanding of the sufficient and completed work of Christ on the cross.
Now you probably heard that Paul was wrong in doing that. My problem is that if
Paul has written – at this point he has written Galatians and he has
written Romans not to mention a number of other things that he’s written in 1
Corinthians and 2 Corinthians. For Paul to have been as out of fellowship and
had almost a psychotic break to go into the Temple and offer a sacrifice if
that’s wrong. What I mentioned the last time is we have to maybe step back and
see that there are elements to the sacrificial system that had a temporal,
ritual value period. It wasn’t wrong for a Jew to continue that, to observe
that until the Temple was destroyed. The writer here in Hebrews 9:9-10 doesn’t
take the opportunity to just flat out condemn any participation whatsoever in
the ritual service of Israel as long as it was understood that it had no real
spiritual value. So he says:
which cannot
make him who performed the service perfect in regard to the conscience –
There was a limitation to these
sacrifices. They taught spiritual principles, but remember a priest in the
Levitical system didn’t even have to be saved to be a priest, he just had to be
related to Levi. So it’s a teaching mechanism that wasn’t a real spirituality.
So they did accomplish something limited.
Verse 10 says:
NKJ Hebrews 9:10 concerned
That is the sacrifices.
only with foods
and drinks, various washings, and fleshly ordinances
That should not be translated
fleshly. It’s ordinances of the flesh. It’s a genitive construction.
imposed until
the time of reformation.
A key word that’s used here is that
word “washings”. Every now and then somebody will hone in on this. It’s the
word baptismos
– the noun baptismos,
which refers to washing. Of course it’s related to the noun that has been brought
over into many other languages and has become a technical term for baptism. But
it’s not talking about baptism. It’s just a general word to describe these
cleansing rituals that occurred in the Levitical system whether it was the
washing of the hands and the feet by the priests or whether it’s the washing of
the bowls and other temple vessels that were used in these temple rituals. There are passages (I listed two: in
Leviticus 6:28 and Mark 7:4) that use this word in terms of the washing of the
vessels in the temple.
The writer of Hebrews is simply
making the point that these sacrifices and gifts that are offered that focus on
this ritual cleansing do not have a permanent value and cannot permanently
solve the problem of sin. That’s the issue of the conscience. They were imposed
until the time of reformation, and the time of reformation is a term that
focuses on the coming of Messiah to deal with the sin problem.
It’s the Greek word diorthosis,
which means improvement or reformation or a new order. When something is going
to change that is a dispensational shift that occurs when Christ paid the
penalty for sin because all these sacrifices ultimately focused on Him. So that
takes us up to where we were last time.
Then there is a contrast starting in
verse 11.
NKJ Hebrews 9:11 But Christ
See the contrast is with the
temporal temporary limited efficacy of the Levitical sacrifices. Then in
contrast:
came as High
Priest of the good things to come, with the greater and more perfect tabernacle
not made with hands, that is, not of this creation.
Now the first thing we have to do is
sort of understand what’s going on in the basic translation. But Christ came as
High Priest. The first word that is used there is the Greek verb paraginomai and
it’s an aorist participle. That basically means it is going to be adverbial and
it depends on for its sense on the main verb. But the main verb isn’t listed
until you get down into verse 12. But it’s brought into, understood to be in
verse 11 as well.
Christ came or it’s the idea of
arrival. Christ arrived on the scene. It’s referring to the First Advent, the
virgin conception, the virgin birth and the arrival of the Second Person of the
Trinity as the Messiah of Israel. But Christ came and now what we see here is
that the action of this participle occurs prior to the main verse. So first He
had to come, and then He enters.
In verse 12 you see the main verb is
down there.
NKJ Hebrews 9:12 Not with the blood of goats and calves, but with His
own blood He entered the Most Holy Place once for all, having obtained eternal
redemption.
He “entered” is the main verb so He
has to come first in the incarnation as the High Priest; and then He enters the
most holy place. So the action of His moving into the role of High Priest is
related to His entering the most holy place. Now this isn’t talking about a
place on the earth. This is talking about the heavenly tabernacle, the
prototype tabernacle in terms of the dwelling place of God in the heavens.
Now we read:
NKJ Hebrews 9:11 But Christ came as High Priest
Then we have an interesting phrase
in the Greek. It’s compounded by the fact that we have a textual problem here.
It reads:
of the good things to come, with the greater and more
perfect tabernacle not made with hands, that is, not of this creation.
Now what are the good things to
come? And this again has a participle, but in this case it is an adjectival
participle based on ginomai, which means to come or come into being, something that has
not existed and now it’s going to be new come into existence. So it’s talking
about the fact that with His high priestly ministry something is going to be
initiated that was not in effect and is going to be new, coming into effect.
Now the question is when does this occur?
In some of the older manuscripts it
has ginomai but
in the Majority Text and also some other manuscripts in a widespread
attestation, there is instead of ginomai there is the word mello, which is a word that is used in
this same kind of context to refer to something in the future. Now if you hold
your place in verse 11 and you turn over to 10:1 we read:
NKJ Hebrews 10:1 For the law, having a shadow of the good things to come, and not the
very image of the things, can never with these same sacrifices, which they
offer continually year by year, make those who approach perfect.
In the shadow of what?
Mello –
the participial form of mello - is what is used there. Same phrase. So in 10:1 we see the
writer talking about the Mosaic Law, which is just a shadow representative of a
reality that will come. Now that reality that’s coming isn’t just talking about
First Advent salvation accomplished at the cross. Between 9:11 and 10:1 we have
9:28, which is talking about the fact that Christ will appear a second time
apart from sin for salvation. So the ultimate culmination of everything is when
Christ arrives to establish His kingdom at the Second Coming.
So I believe that- and the English translation
is going to be the same but the significance of the grammar and the verbiage is
different in the Greek. Christ came at the First Advent as High Priest of the
good things to come. The "good things to come" isn’t going to be past
tense as ginomai
would be. It’s aorist and that would refer to the cross. But it is a present
participle which is going to throw the “good things to come” into the Second
Advent - into what comes when Christ returns at the Second Coming and
establishes the New covenant, the sacrifice for which was made at the
cross.
We’ve looked at this in the past and
we’ve seen that when Christ died on the cross that is the sacrifice related to
the New covenant. If Israel had accepted Jesus as the Messiah, then the New covenant
would have come into effect at that time. We spent a lot of time about a year
ago going through all the New covenant related passages in Isaiah and Jeremiah
and Ezekiel showing that, according to the Jewish prophecies, when the New covenant
comes into effect there’s a Davidic king on the throne the people are
regenerate and in the land, and the kingdom is established. None of those
things are going on now. There is no Davidic king on the throne. The Jews are
not regenerate and the kingdom (the literal kingdom) has not been established. So
the New covenant (and the instigation of the New covenant) is postponed.
Now people always say, “Well what
about Paul saying we are ministers of the New covenant?”
Well, there is an aspect of the
cross as the New covenant sacrifice that applies in relation to blessing for
Church Age believers; but the New covenant is between the house of Israel and
the house of Judah and God - and the church only participates by virtue of our
relationship to the High Priest. That’s the argument coming out of Hebrews 7 on
into the beginning of chapter 8. Christ is the High Priest; our priesthood (the
priesthood of believers in the Church Age) is related to His High Priesthood.
So that’s on one side of the equation. Remember in any covenant you have one
party entering into a contract with another party. Well, we don’t benefit on
the one side because the contract is with the house of Judah and the house of
Israel. We’re not Jewish. We participate by virtue of our identification with
Christ and His high priestly ministry. Our priesthood is derivative of
that.
So when that is established, then
that’s when we come back with Christ as the bride of Christ and we are going to
rule and reign with Him. That’s what we see in the book of Revelation. So
Christ’s coming as the High Priest of the good things to come focuses attention
away from the cross because in the next clause it says:
NKJ Hebrews 9:11 But Christ came as High Priest of the good things to come, with the greater and
more perfect tabernacle not made with hands, that is, not of this creation.
Now that’s talking about when He
comes as High Priest. It’s when He goes into heaven. That’s when He takes over
and begins to fully function as High Priest. Jesus Christ is prophet, priest
and king. His ministry as a king doesn’t begin until the Second Coming when He
returns as King of Kings and Lord of Lords. His ministry as the prophet –
the Deuteronomy18 reference that a prophet greater than Moses would come
– was the primary thrust of His First Advent ministry. It doesn’t mean
that there weren’t elements of the other two. But that’s the primary thrust.
He’s offering the kingdom, but He’s not King. But He’s offering the kingdom,
but He doesn’t receive the throne until the Second Coming. So there are
elements of all in each dimension, but there’s a primary emphasis. So prophet
is a primary at His period of incarnation; His high priestly ministry is the
primary thrust today at the right hand of the Father. Then His royal kingship
is what goes into effect at the Second Coming when He comes back as King of
Kings and Lord of Lords. So the high priestly ministry goes into high gear when
He enters the more complete tabernacle not made of hands, not of this creation.
This tells us that there is a heavenly dwelling place of God.
It’s interesting that in Hebrews it’s
called the Tabernacle. In the book of Revelation it’s called the Temple of God.
Why is there that distinction? I think it’s because in the book of Hebrews the
writer of Hebrews is making the comparison and analogy between the ritual that
existed in the Tabernacle in the early days under Moses. So it correlates to
what Jesus does in heaven. The function of the High Priest is the same whether
you’re in the tabernacle or the temple.
It doesn’t make a significant difference other than in terms of making
the connection of Tabernacle ritual because a few things change when you got
into the First Temple period.
NKJ Hebrews 9:11 But Christ came as High Priest of the good things to come, with the greater and
more perfect tabernacle not made with hands, that is, not of this creation.
It is the heavenly tabernacle, the
heavenly prototype that Moses saw that God revealed to Him that heavenly vision
that blueprint based on the way things were in heaven.
Now we come to verse 12.
NKJ Hebrews 9:12 Not with the blood of goats and calves,
Now verse 12 flows directly out of
verse 11. If you’ve got a King James or a New King James Bible - I don’t know
what happens in the New American Standard. I think New American Standard may
end verse 11 with a period. But they’re one sentence. Eleven and 12 are one
sentence. The main verb is down in the middle of verse 12 – He entered.
So you have this negation here that He doesn’t enter the heavenly tabernacle
with the blood of goats and calves.
but with His
own blood He entered the Most Holy Place once for all, having obtained eternal
redemption
Now this is another very important
passage to take apart grammatically to understand the significance here. It is
contrasting Jesus’ entry into the heavenly temple with the high priest, the
human high priest, the Levitical high priest’s entry into the earthly temple.
So there’s the contrast – Jesus into the heavenly temple, the human high
priest (the Aaronic high priest) entering into the earthly temple – that
the high priest entered on the basis of the sacrifice of goats and calves.
Now when did this happen? This happens
on the Day of Atonement as I reminded you earlier. He enters in on the Day of
Atonement. The first thing that the high priest would do was to take a bull,
and this bull could be of any age from 8 days on. Usually it was about a year
old and so the term calves could relate not with the blood of bulls and goats,
or goats and calves rather, but the goats refer to the taking of the two goats
in the ritual related to the scapegoat.
So the writer of Hebrews is just summarizing the taking of the sacrifices,
the sin offerings, the whole burnt offerings, and the scapegoat offerings on
the Day of Atonement. Just as the high priest would enter into the Holy of
Holies on the basis of a sacrifice of the sin offering and the burnt offering,
Jesus in contrast enters in by means of His own blood.
So we have the phrase in the Greek dia plus the
genitive, which indicates means. It’s the same thing that we have in Ephesians
2:8-9.
NKJ Ephesians 2:8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of
yourselves; it
is the gift of God,
NKJ Ephesians 2:9 not of works, lest anyone should boast.
…through faith, not because of
faith, but through faith. That is the intermediate means of entry. So He enters
not with His blood. That English preposition with sounds like He has an
accompaniment with Him like He is either carrying it in a pail or He still has
it in His body. So that’s the New King James. “With” is just a poor translation of this kind of a genitive
statement. It’s through His own blood. Since blood stands for death we can
translate this not “with the death of goats and calves” but “through His own
death He entered the most holy place once for all.”
This takes us back to the issue, the
instructions in Leviticus 16:3, 5.
NKJ Leviticus 16:3 "Thus Aaron shall come into the Holy Place: with the blood of a young bull as a sin
offering, and of
a ram as a burnt offering.
NKJ Leviticus 16:5 "And he shall take from the congregation of the
children of Israel two kids of the goats as a sin offering, and one ram as a
burnt offering.
Now when we read:
NKJ Hebrews 9:12 Not with the blood of goats and calves, but with His own blood He
entered the Most Holy Place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption.
This is the Greek word ephapax. Now
this is the Greek word hapax, which means alone. It’s intensified with the preposition epi so when
you bring them together it’s ephapax. The root there, hapax, is
where we get a technical term called a hapax
legomenon. Every now and then it will slip out of my mouth. That refers to a Greek word or a Hebrew
word that’s only used one time. That’s always a bit of a challenge when you are
studying the text and you have a word that’s used only one time. Well, how do
you find what it means because meaning comes from word usage? If you only have
one example of a word being used anywhere it’s a little more difficult to
ascertain the meaning. The core idea is once. This word is used 4 times in the
New Testament in relationship to the completed work of Christ on the cross.
NKJ Romans 6:10 For the death that He died, He died to sin once for all; but the life that
He lives, He lives to God.
So that debt to sin is final. It’s
complete. It’s sufficient.
Hebrews 7:27 says that in
relationship to Christ that He:
NKJ Hebrews 7:27 who does not need daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifices,
first for His own sins and then for the people's, for this He did once for all
when He offered up Himself.
Then we have our current passage in Hebrews
9:12 and then Hebrews 10:10
NKJ Hebrews 10:10 By that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of
Jesus Christ once for all.
It is complete and final.
So verse 12 says that it’s:
NKJ Hebrews 9:12 Not with the blood of goats and calves, but with His
own blood He entered the Most Holy Place once for all, having obtained eternal
redemption.
Now this is another key word that we
have to take a look at. It is a Greek word heurisko. It is an aorist middle participle.
The grammar here is just loaded with these participles, but the participles
have to be understood in the light of the verbs that they’re related to. He
enters; that’s your main verb.
The aorist participle there precedes
the action of the main verb. Whenever you have an aorist participle, no matter
what the tense of the main verb is, an aorist participle always precedes the
action of the main verb. So that tells us that He is able to enter the most
holy place in heaven because He had already obtained eternal redemption.
The word there for “to obtain” is
the Greek verb heurisko,
meaning to find or to discover. It’s used idiomatically for the idea of
bringing something to completion. So He has obtained eternal redemption. He has
accomplished this objectively. This is again describing that first category of
redemption that I talked about on Sunday, which talks about the objective
payment of the price in relation to the judicial demand of God. We can call
that judicial payment – that Jesus Christ pays the penalty so that it is
completely paid for everybody – believer, unbeliever, all sins are paid
for objectively by Christ on the cross. This is the idea that is here that He
had already accomplished eternal redemption because He had obtained eternal
redemption.
NKJ Hebrews 9:12 Not with the blood of goats and calves, but with His
own blood He entered the Most Holy Place once for all, having obtained eternal
redemption.
So this can’t’ be lost.
Now that takes us on into verse
13.
NKJ Hebrews 9:13 For if
Now there’s going to be an
explanation. Now this again is very interesting and important passage.
the blood of
bulls and goats and the ashes of a heifer, sprinkling the unclean, sanctifies for
the purifying of the flesh,
Now what’s interesting here is this
construction. He says “for if” and he uses a first class condition in the
Greek. Now in Greek you can express an “if” clause four different ways based on
the grammar. Each of these has a slightly different significance. If you use
one construction it means if and the speaker is assuming what he is saying to
be true. If you use a second class construction (a second class condition) that
is assuming that your condition is false. For example when - on the first class
condition when Satan is addressing Jesus in the wilderness, he says, “If you
are the Son of God.” He uses a first class condition so he’s recognizing that
Jesus in the Son of God. Second class condition, if and we’re not assuming it
to be true; third class condition is the one we normally think of - if and
maybe you will and maybe you won’t. That’s like 1 John 1:9 for “if we confess
our sins.” Maybe you will and maybe you won’t. But when you do, God is faithful
and just to forgive you your sins and cleanse you from all unrighteousness.
Well this is a first class condition.
That means the writer is making an affirmative statement that the blood
of bulls and goats and the ashes of a heifer sprinkling the unclean (that is
that which was ritually unclean and unsanctified) would sanctify or set apart,
and it was good for setting apart the purification or cleansing of the
flesh.
The word there for cleansing is the
Greek word katharotes.
It can be translated cleanness or purity – purification or cleansing in a
ritual sense. So he is recognizing that the blood of the sacrifices did
something. It wasn’t just symbolic. There was an actual cleansing that took
place ritually and it had a value that would only last for a year until the next
Day of Atonement. It was not permanent.
So he mentions three things. He
mentions the blood of the bulls for the sin offerings and the goats and then
third the ashes of a heifer. Now we haven’t talked about the red heifer
offering at all in all of our study of the tabernacle and so tonight I just
want to wrap up by going over the red heifer offering.
Let’s turn back to the Old Testament in Numbers 19. Again
this is a sacrifice that reinforces the teaching of a blood sacrifice being
necessary in order to provide ritual cleansing for the people so that they can
come into the presence of God. It doesn’t mean that they’re saved. It doesn’t
mean that they’re not saved. It is ritual. It’s related to the formal worship
of God within the tabernacle in the Old Testament. Numbers 19 describes the
ritual that occurred with the purification of what we call the red heifer
offering.
A heifer is a young cow not quite
three years of age that has not yet had a calf – a young cow that has not
yet had a calf. The red heifer was to be examined to make sure that she was
without spot or blemish and then it was to be slaughtered and burned outside by
the gate – not slaughtered at the bronze altar, but outside by the gate.
So this is different than any of the other sacrifices. The red heifer offering
would be slaughtered and completely burned—everything. It was to be
disemboweled and have the intestines and everything cleaned and some of the
organs used for different purposes. Everything was to be completely burned and
then the ashes were going to be mixed with spring water and this liquid made
from the ashes of the red heifer would then be used in a purification
ceremony.
So what in the world is this all
about? Well, to understand that we have to look at the context in Numbers
beginning in Numbers 13 and 14. So we’re just going to take a quick review of
what happens in these chapters. In Numbers 13 we have the story of the spies
who were sent into the land of Canaan.
Remember they are told that they’re to see how they are going to have
victory over the Canaanites. They’re not sent into see if they are going to
have victory over the Canaanites and they go into Canaan and they see the
fortified cities and they see giants in the land. They’re overwhelmed by the
size. They see the numbers of the people are large.
They come back and 10 of the 12
spies said, “There’s no way we can do this.”
The other two said, “Well, God
didn’t tell us to see if we could do it. God said to go check it out and do a
recon because He has already given it to us.”
Because the people followed the ten
spies that had no faith rather than Joshua and Caleb who did trust God, then
that whole generation was disciplined.
They were not going to be allowed to go into the land. They would have
to wander in the wilderness for the next 40 years until that generation died
and their children came to maturity. They could then enter into the land.
So chapters 13 and chapter 14 deal
with the disobedience of the nation. At the end of chapter 14 God announces the
judgment on this generation and that they would all die before they entered the
land. What we see here is a major emphasis on death in the next few chapters;
but some of them don’t believe what God says. So they try to go into battle in
their own strength in verses 39 to 45 and they are soundly defeated.
Then we come to chapter 16 and there
is the rebellion of Korah who is a Levite but he associates with two
non-Levites, Dathan and Abiram. They are the sons of Eliab and on the son of
Peleth, sons of Reuben. So they are Reubenites. They are not Levites; they are
not priests. They engaged in a conspiracy and rebellion against Moses and
Aaron. There are about 250 leaders of the congregation that are associated with
them. So there is a challenge that they bring to the leadership of Moses and
Aaron. Moses handles them with a tremendous amount of grace even though he is
extremely angry with them. He tells them that they are to come back the next
day and bring their censers with fire and that God is going to show who is
right.
As we go through the episode, what
happens is that these 250 leaders and the key leaders, Korah, Dathan, and
Abiram and their families are all told to stand outside their tents. Everybody
else has to stand back and God is going to judge them. Moses says it is going
to be done in such a way that it’s clear that “It’s not me; it’s God. And the
earth is going to open up and swallow them.” That’s exactly what happened at
that instant. God causes an earthquake and swallows up Dathan, Abiram, Korah, and
the families and the 250 leaders are all killed by God at that instant. So
there is death.
Then the people come back the next
day. You would think having had that empirical episode with God’s justice that
the next day they would be a little bit humble. But they’re not. They come back
complaining against Moses and Aaron the next day. See when you’re in a position
of leadership and you have to deal with arrogant people, that’s all you have to
put up with - is complaining. And they’re never justified. It’s just complaint
after complaint.
So they come back the next day
complaining against Moses and Aaron saying, “It’s your fault. You killed all
those people and we want justice.”
So then God tells Moses that He is going
to destroy the entire congregation in verse 45. Moses tells Aaron to go take a
censer, put fire in and put that in the Tabernacle to make atonement for the
people because God is sending a plague among them. And 14,700 people are killed
that day so that a little more than 15,000 are killed in the whole episode. So
again we have a tremendous amount of death that takes place.
Then chapter 17 we have an episode
where God is going to demonstrate that Aaron is the high priest that He has
chosen and that they are to only allow Aaron to serve as the high priest. This
is the episode with Aaron’s rod that is going to sprout the almond leaves and
almond blossoms and almonds. So this takes place. Somebody from each of the
tribes each put their staffs into the Tabernacle and the next morning they get
up and Aaron’s rod has budded. What God is going to show is that only His man,
Aaron and his descendents, can serve as the high priest.
Chapter 18 describes the duties of
the high priest and the Levites and there is a warning that if anybody else
serves as a priest, then God will take their life. They will die. So you have this whole thing of death that
has gone on – death and death and death. All these people will die so the
nation is not cleansed. They are
now ceremonially impure because they have touched these dead bodies.
I’m going to skip passed chapter 19.
Verses 1-10 describe the ritual of the red heifer offering and verse 11
immediately following it says:
NKJ Numbers 19:11 ' He who touches the dead body of anyone shall be
unclean seven days.
NKJ Numbers 19:12 'He shall purify himself with the water
That’s the water that’s made from
the ashes of the red heifer.
on the third
day and on the seventh day; then he will be clean. But if he does not purify himself on the
third day and on the seventh day, he will not be clean.
Now he doesn’t just jump from the
description of the ritual with the red heifer offering (verses 1-10) to a
totally unrelated subject. Up to chapter 19 we have all this discipline and death
that has occurred. So many have died that the people are all ceremonially
unclean because they have touched these dead bodies. There has to be a
purification for the whole nation. This makes this a unique sacrifice to purify
the Tabernacle and to purify the people within this context of death. It’s a
unique sacrifice. It has elements of a sacrifice, but it’s not slaughtered at
the bronze altar. It’s slaughtered outside the camp and the thrust is
purification.
The cow was to be unblemished and
not have had a yoke put on her and no defect according to 19:2. It’s not stated
who actually sacrifices the heifer, but
the blood is brought to Eleazar in verse 3 who then takes the blood with
his finger and sprinkles the blood 7 times directly in front of the tabernacle
of meeting in order to purify it. Then the red heifer is completely burned
– the hide, the flesh, the blood, the refuse. 19:5-6 describes this. Then
cedar wood, hyssop and scarlet are burned with it. Now the only other time you
have cedar, hyssop and scarlet material mentioned is in the purification in the
non-sacrificial rite for the lepers. So this shows that this is a purification
ceremony.
Following that the priest would then
wash his clothes and bathe completely in water. Then the priest was considered
to be unclean until evening according to verse 7.
In verse 8 another priest who was
clean would take the high priest’s clothes and burn them completely. Then
another unnamed man would come up who was clean, that is, sanctified in terms
of tabernacle worship, who would gather up the ashes of the heifer and deposit
them outside the camp in a clean place and mix them with water for the
purification ceremony.
So again the red heifer ceremony
shows God’s provision to cleanse the people of sin and anything related to it
and anything that causes that breach of fellowship with God. God provides the
complete solution.
There is recognition that this actually
does accomplish something. So in Hebrews 9:13 the writer says:
NKJ Hebrews 9:13 For if
If and it did.
the blood of
bulls and goats and the ashes of a heifer, sprinkling the unclean,
That is the ceremonially unclean,
those who could not approach God in worship in the Tabernacle.
sanctifies for
the purifying of the flesh,
It would cleanse or purify them or
set them apart for the purification of the flesh. It’s just external. It just
has to do with ritual. Let me finish this thought and we’ll come back again and
look at this next time in verse 14.
NKJ Hebrews 9:14 how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the
This is what is called an afortiori argument or an argument from
the lesser to the greater. In Hebrew it is called cal lehomer argument. What it argues is that if this lesser
situation is true, then how much greater the other will be - how much more this
other will be. If A is true, how much more then will B be true? So if the blood of bulls and goats had
some limited value in cleansing, how much more shall the blood of Christ the
death of Christ who through the:
eternal Spirit
offered Himself without spot to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to
serve the living God?
So we’ll get into that the next time
to see how this cleansing of the conscience from dead works and then move into
the 15th verse really starts to get interesting in relation to His
role as mediator of the New covenant and paying the price of sin, the
redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant.