Hebrews Lesson 214 October 7, 2010
NKJ Psalm 119:9 How
can a young man cleanse his way? By taking heed according to Your word.
Open
your Bibles to Hebrews 13. We are beginning in verse 7.
This
is a final summary exhortation or challenge to the readers that are being addressed
here. Normally we've seen the general outline of a section of instruction
followed by a section of challenge or exhortation, and imbedded within the
challenge was a warning. Sometimes the warning especially in the early parts,
the warning was pretty much the whole exhortation. But now as we come to the
end, the final instructional section was the 11th chapter followed
by an exhortation that grew out of the 11th chapter and that covered
the 12th chapter. Then chapter 13 is the final concluding exhortation;
or challenge or in modern terminology this is the application.
As
I pointed out last time, contrary to the way modern man wants to constantly
have his food pre-masticated for him and put him on his plate where he doesn't
have to chew it or cook it or do anything, he constantly has fast food
philosophy applied to spiritual life and spiritual things. He doesn't want to
think. We don't want to go home and go to the store and buy all the raw
ingredients for food and then come home and prepare a meal that may take an
hour or two hours. We would rather call and get it to go or go to fast food
line and not have to go through the process of thought and spiritual
preparation. You just can't do that in the Christian life, in the spiritual
life. It takes time; it takes thought. It takes effort. So an application as we see in the
Scriptures usually comes in much smaller sections than what we have in terms of
the modern mindset - give 5 points on how to be successful in life or 6 points
on how to be happy.
The
Bible just isn't structured that way. It is designed to teach us to think
differently than the culture around us and not to have that kind of an approach
to life. So often what we find is lengthy sections that are explaining who we
are as Christians, what we have in terms of our salvation in Jesus Christ, our
new identity in Christ as believers in the Lord Jesus Christ and all that that
means. So you find in for example the first part of Colossians, the first part
of Ephesians; you find this emphasis unpacking everything that God did for us
in salvation.
The
more we understand what God did for us at salvation, the more it should impact
us in terms of gratitude, in terms of grace orientation and in terms of the
desire to live for God and serve God. So here we come to the final chapter in
Hebrews and we just get these this series of one shot commands and prohibitions
in the first 8 or 9 verses. But then starting in verse 9 there is an extended
application that covers verses 9 down through verse 16. It’s all based on
understanding what took place on the Day of Atonement in the Old Testament. So
once again the writer of Hebrews is taking us back into the Old Testament
looking at the picture that God provided for Israel in the Old Testament so
that they would have a concrete example of what would transpire when God
finally brought about atonement for the sins of the nation and for the sins of
mankind. That is described in Leviticus 16, which we will go back to examine
before we are done this evening.
As I
pointed out last time, we had a series of commands and prohibitions in the
first 6 verses. Then there is a shift in verse 7 to talk about the attitude and
the response of the congregation to the spiritual leaders. This actually frames
this final section of instruction.
NKJ Hebrews 13:17
Obey those who rule over you, and be submissive, for they watch out for your
souls, as those who must give account. Let them do so with joy and not with
grief, for that would be unprofitable for you.
So
the 17th verse comes back to this theme of the orientation of the
congregation to the leadership of the local church. Verse 7 introduces this so
this whole section is framed by these two mandates related to leadership
NKJ Hebrews 13:7
Remember those who rule over you, who have spoken the word of God to you, whose
faith follow, considering the outcome of their conduct.
Now
the New King James translation here is a little difficult to understand. It
doesn't really reflect or it’s not the best way of reflecting what the Greek
text says. You actually have two commands, two imperative verbs in this verse.
Remember is the first one. The verse here uses the word 'follow', which is the
second. Both of these are given as present imperatives. Remember is the present
active imperative of the Greek verb mnemoneuo and imitate is the Greek verb mimeomai.
Both are present imperatives indicating that this should be normal standard
operating procedure that should characterize every day aspects of the
believer’s spiritual life.
Initially
the believer is commanded to remember those who rule over you although the verb
here that is translated rule is the verb hegeomai, which is the same word, which in
other places is translated to consider, to count, to think, to regard. But here
in this context it has the idea that’s related to leadership. It's not a word
that indicates the ruling as much as leadership. It should be translated “to
remember your leaders.” Remember the leaders of you, literally. Or, remember your leaders. It is
thinking about those who were not their current leaders in their local assembly
but those who initially taught them, those who initially perhaps brought them
to an understanding of the gospel that Jesus of Nazareth was the promised
Messiah of the Old Testament and that He died on the cross as a substitute for
their sins in fulfillment of all of the Old Testament prophecies, promises and
pictures embedded in the sacrificial system.
So
what the command is doing here is to say, “Look. Think back on those leaders
who initially brought you from being an unbeliever to a believer.”
Now
we’re right there's no hard, hard evidence of who the recipients are. I’ve said
a number of times that these were Jewish believers in Jesus as Messiah. Most likely they came out of a priestly
or Levitical background. The reason that is inferred is because there's so much
in Hebrews that assumes a complete and thorough knowledge of the Levitical
system and the sacrificial system in the Old Testament. So from that it’s
inferred that for anyone to have that kind of knowledge of the sacrificial
system they would have had to have been a priest or a Levite functioning within
the various procedures of the Second Temple.
So
the writer of Hebrews is saying, “Now I want you to remember or to think about
those who were your leaders who led you into Christianity at the very
beginning.”
Now
we’re told in Acts 4 that there was a huge number of priests just after the day
of Pentecost in AD 33. A very large number of priests became believers. Some of
those could be these individuals to whom this is being written. This is written
about 62, 63 AD. So this has only been 30 years. Some of you have been
Christians for 30 years.
I
found it interesting this last week. The reason we did not have Bible class on
Tuesday night was because I was attending the Free Grace Alliance Conference in
Dallas. That began on Monday and went through noon yesterday. They had a number
of different speakers. A couple people asked me about the conference. As far as
I was concerned the speaker than I was most interested in hearing, and that I
think did to the best job, was Joseph Dillow. He goes by Jody Dillow. Dr.
Dillow, I first met him I think back when I was a student at Dallas. He was in
the doctoral program. He wrote the book Reign of the Servant Kings. Some of you have
read that and are familiar with that book. I think Jody just waded her way
through it. Well Judy, I want you to know that as a reward for all of your work
the second edition (a completely revised edition) is twice as long and is due
out within the next year. It's about 600 pages as it stands now. So I just
thought I’d give her a bit of a hard time. It’s hard enough for many of us to
work through the whole thing to begin with, but it is very well done. In my
opinion (although there are areas and passages I'm not in agreement with him
on), generally speaking he does the best job of putting together a systematic
theology of the free grace gospel dealing with the whole range of issues that
come into play in understanding the grace of God, the free grace offer of
salvation, and that do we do nothing to earn of deserve it. So he spoke two
times Tuesday morning and did an excellent job dealing with some issues related
to the kingdom of God. That was very good.
Then
they also had a number of breakout sessions with panel discussions which
weren’t in my opinion quite as profitable as it is to hear someone who has
really devoted themselves to an in depth study and analysis of the topic or
issue and then present that. So anyway I was there for that conference and just
thinking about a lot of these issues. I went down that rabbit trail and now I
don't remember what the rabbit looked like that I was hunting. That happens
every now and then.
The
point of this passage is to remember those who rule over you. The word that is
translated “rule” should really be translated as a leader, those who led you,
who have spoken. It’s an aorist tense verb there: 'who spoke the Word of God to
you'. So it’s clearly speaking of the events in the past.
NKJ Hebrews 13:7 Remember
those who rule over you, who have spoken the word of God to you, whose faith
follow, considering the outcome of their conduct.
Then
the next section is a little bit convoluted here in the English but the attempt
in the New King James was to pull what's later in the verse in the Greek up to
the front so that we are commanded to imitate the faith of those leaders. They
are in some cases gone by this time and they’re no longer around. Some have
died; some have moved to other areas. But these believers here in Hebrews 13
are to remember them and to imitate them.
Then
the other word that is used there (the word 'considering') is actually a
participle and it emphasizes the idea of thinking, the idea of thinking and
reflecting upon the outcome of their conduct. That word that is translated
outcome should be understood to be the end result or the ultimate or final
achievement in their life. So think about those leaders and how they gave their
life to the service of the Lord and how they were involved in evangelism, in
teaching the Word, the impact they had on you. Think about the end result of
their whole life as a ministry and focus upon that.
In
other words it’s another reminder: don’t give up the ship; don't quit now in
the middle of your spiritual life or don't quit after 20 or 30 or 40 years of
your spiritual life, but follow in the footsteps or imitate those who went
before you.
Then
in the next verse we have a well-known verse that many of you have memorized
simply because you heard it many times, and it’s not a very difficult
verse.
NKJ Hebrews 13:8 Jesus
Christ is the
same yesterday, today, and forever.
The
word “is” is placed in there to make it read more smoothly in the English, but
it loses the impact. By dropping the verb (known as an ellipsis) it hits with a
certain force.
NKJ Hebrews 13:8 Jesus
Christ is the
same yesterday, today, and forever.
Now
this verse is typically taken out of context and used to support the
immutability of Jesus Christ – immutability meaning that He never
changes. He is the same yesterday, today, and forever. That is certainly part
of the meaning of this verse. But the writer of this verse is not jumping from
a challenge to remember the rulers (the leaders) and imitate them to suddenly
change to a completely different topic and throw in a one liner on the
immutability of Christ. It doesn't
fit the context. It's there. I'm not saying that this verse doesn't imply that;
it does, but he’s not writing a discourse here on the immutability of
Christ.
What
the writer is saying is: remember that Jesus Christ who was sufficient for
those leaders who taught you about Jesus as the Messiah, the Jesus who was
sufficient for them in the trials and persecution that they went through in their
spiritual life, is the same Jesus Christ today. He was sufficient for them; He
is just as sufficient for you; and He will be just as sufficient in the future
no matter what you may face in life. No matter what the temptations maybe, no
matter what the challenges may be, Jesus Christ is sufficient throughout for
whatever the circumstances may be that you are facing.
He
is not really talking directly to the doctrine of the immutability of Jesus
Christ, but what he's really reminding the readers of is that just as the
previous generation had gone through difficult times and had faced adversity
and persecution and they too were tempted to perhaps just give up their
Christianity, they recognized that Jesus Christ was sufficient for them, and
just as Jesus was sufficient for them this writer is saying He's the same today
and He will be the same tomorrow, no matter what you face. We all face
challenges.
Think
back on in your life. You have been exposed to a lot of different pastors and
Christian leaders, and two or three different churches at least. Some of you
have been involved in other kinds of ministries. I've been involved in camping
ministries and when I go back 40 years, 50 years ago when I was a teenager and
when I was in my twenties and I think about some of the men who were
influential in my life at that time, many of whom have gone to be with the Lord
for many, many decades. It's the same sufficient gospel. It's the same
sufficient Lord. It's the same sufficient grace that they taught, that they experienced,
that was real in their life that we have today. You can think back to those who
led before in a previous generation and remember their example, and that is an
encouragement to us to stay the course.
Verse
8 is emphasizing the sufficiency of Christ as much so if not more than His
immutability. Now what’s interesting is this verse, just taking it out of
context, has often been used and was used in the great debates over the nature
of the deity of Jesus in the debates that occurred in the early 5th
century AD, or early 4th
century. If you recall from church history in 325 the Council of Nicaea met
where the big debate was: is Jesus fully equal to the Father? This was one of
the verses that Athanasius used. Athanasius was the bishop. Earlier he was the
presbyter of Alexandria in Egypt. He came to the council to contest the
teaching of a man named Arius. Arius taught that Jesus was finite. He had a
beginning, that only the Father was eternal; but that the Son had a beginning.
His little mantra was that there was a time when Christ was not. Athanasius
challenged that. It had become a very popular heresy throughout the Roman
Empire.
It's
the same teaching that has resurrected itself today in the teaching of the
Jehovah's Witnesses. Their Jesus is a Jesus who becomes God in time, not a
Jesus that is eternally God and eternally the same.
This
verse was used by Athanasius, and then in the next generation as the debates
continue you had three theologians in the area of what we now refer to as
Turkey, Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory Nanzianzus and also Basil. These were three
men to clearly taught the deity of Christ. Gregory of Nanzianzus argued that
the yesterday and the forever (the past and the future) refer to the deity of
Christ and the “today” referred to the humanity of Christ.
Now
that’s the kind of exegesis that reads a lot of stuff into a passage that
really isn’t there. It’s trying to get this passage to say things it’s not talking
about all. You can’t derive something like that from a verse of this nature. We
always have to remember the context. When you take the text out of the context
you are always left with the con job, so we have to be careful to always keep
the verse in context. What the writer of Hebrews is talking about is
encouraging these believers to persevere, to stay the course. Those first two
verses talk about remember, imitate and think about or reflect upon or meditate
on the outcome of those who have gone before and that Jesus Christ today is the
same who sustained them and will sustain us in the future.
Then
verse 9 begins a slightly different section. If you notice there's not a new
paragraph starting there because each of these little sections seem like another
commandment. So it’s usually not broken down here. But as I've studied this, it
seems to me like verses 9 through at least 15 and probably 16 all fit together.
All of these have something to do with the Day of Atonement; and that's really
the background for understanding these verses.
Let
me just read the first 4 verses here; and then we'll go to Leviticus 16.
NKJ Hebrews 13:9 Do
not be carried about with various and strange doctrines.
We
have to ask the question: what are these strange doctrines that seem to be
enticing them away from the truth?
For
The
“for” there tells you that this is an explanation. The prohibition was “don’t
get carried about, don’t get sucked into these strange doctrines.” He says:
it
is good that the heart be established by grace,
So
we have this term "heart" which reflects the soul and the mentality
of the soul that the soul is established. That’s something positive that
strengthens the soul. The soul is established by grace. The contrast is:
not with foods which have not profited those who have been
occupied with them.
What
establishes the heart is understanding something, and receiving that
understanding of grace. The reason I make that point is there've been many who
have taken this as some sort of a verse to emphasize fasting and some sort of
acetic response towards food. But that just misses the whole point.
It’s
talking about just as the heart receives grace to be strengthened. For the
analogy to work, this is talking about receiving food that would bring
spiritual profit. It’s the idea of eating something that is thought to provide
spiritual benefit; in other words, an emphasis on certain foods that have been
used in some sort of ritual preparation.
Now
what would that be? Well, the context of Hebrews is clearly focused on Jewish
ritual in understanding the shift from the Old Testament (the old covenant
ritual) to the superiority of the New Covenant and what is provided in Christ.
We’ll see there are some foods that were eaten exclusively by the priesthood or
in one case by the worshipper. So it's apparently that there has entered into
Judaism in this period of the 1st century some emphasis on the
spiritual value of the food that was eaten or partaken of as part of the
sacrifices. That’s the idea there.
NKJ Hebrews 13:10 We
have an altar from which those who serve the tabernacle have no right to eat.
NKJ Hebrews 13:11 For
the bodies of those animals, whose blood is brought into the sanctuary by the
high priest for sin, are burned outside the camp.
Now
when does the high priest bring the bodies or the blood from certain animals
into the sanctuary? On the Day of Atonement.
So
finally we get this clear indication we're talking about the Day of Atonement.
Then it's applied to Jesus in verse 12.
NKJ Hebrews 13:12 Therefore
Jesus also, that He might sanctify
Or
set apart.
the people with His own blood, suffered outside the gate.
Then
verse 13 begins with a “therefore” so there were going to get a conclusion and
an application. So 9 through 12, those 4 verses, really have a background in
the Old Testament.
What
I want you to do now is turn to Leviticus 1 for a little review. It’s been
probably a year or two since we went through that lengthy study we were engaged
in the middle of Hebrews in Hebrews 7 and 8 dealing with all of these different
sacrifices and all the different offerings. In Leviticus 1 we have the burnt
offering. Different animals could be brought for a burnt offering depending on
the economic situation, the prosperity of the one who was bringing the
offering. But in the burnt offering everything was to be consumed by fire, and
everything was to be offered up for God. So there's no eating of the animals
that are offered in the sacrifice.
In
chapter 2 we have the grain offering. This was a meal that was prepared and was
eaten. Some of it was offered up to God, and some was eaten by the worshipers.
It’s a picture of fellowship. In verse 4 and in verse 10 we’re told that Aaron
and his sons would eat what remained of the grain offering. The grain offering
provided a food for the priests. Then we have the peace offering in chapter 3,
and the sin offering and the guilt offering in chapters 4 and 5.
Then
in chapter 7 there is further development of the law of the peace offerings.
There is the mention that as part of the peace offerings this could also be
eaten by the priests. So more of the food is available for the priests. Some of
the parts of the animal were also eaten by the priests. This would indicate a
food that had been ritually prepared, ritually offered and was eaten by the
priest. That's the only thing that would make sense in light of what the writer
is saying in verse 9.
NKJ Hebrews 13:9 Do
not be carried about with various and strange doctrines.
For
That's
the explanation.
it
is good that the heart be established by grace, not with foods
which have not profited those who have been occupied with them.
What
is it that confirms or strengthens the heart? That's the idea of the word there.
It is grace. We grow by means of grace.
“We
grow by the grace and the knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ,” Peter says in 2
Peter 3:18.
NKJ 2 Peter 3:18 but
grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To Him be the glory
both now and forever. Amen.
Grace
is a means of growth. It is not a power. It is understanding the grace of God.
The more we understand the grace of God and all that He freely provided for us,
the stronger we become as a Christian; the more we understand all that He has
given us. That's clear in Romans 6. Three of the great chapters on
sanctification I did a study of this about 10 or 12 years ago that’s out on the
Web site. It’s a good survey series about 15 or 20 lessons on Romans 6, 7, and
8. Those are the key chapters on the spiritual life and sanctification.
What
is interesting is in the course of church history, there had been up probably 8
or 9 different key models or patterns that have been discerned for how a
Christian grows. You have the Roman Catholic model of the spiritual life. You
have the reformed or the Presbyterian-Calvinistic model of the spiritual
life. You have the Wesleyan or
Methodist model of spiritual life, the holiness model, the Keswick model, the
Pentecostal model, the Chaferian model named after Louis Sperry Chafer. There’s
about 90% agreement in all of these models. It’s the 10% difference (in some
cases only 2% difference) that is where the real issues are. But it's just like
a gallon of water is really good for you. A gallon of water with a couple of
drops a cyanide in it isn't a whole lot different. But it's not good for you.
It's important to focus on those.
This
is why people say: "Oh theology. You’re just picking at little things.”
They
may be little things to some people but they're very important. We have to
understand these differences and these distinctions. So that's what we're going
to be focusing on. It’s going to be a great conference. We’re going to look at
the whole topic of biblically, theologically in terms of historical theology
and basically answering a couple of different questions: what does the Bible
teach in terms of the pattern in the past for the spiritual life? What is it?
What isn't it? What’s part of it? What’s not part of it? What are some of the
problems, so the icks, acks and spasms that are out there that distract people
such as mysticism and things that need to be part of the pattern and things
that are not necessarily integral to the pattern. So that's going to be the
focus of this year's Chafer conference.
I
think it's going to be really, really good. I mean all the guys are working
really hard on their papers. I’ll be speaking in the evening on abiding in
Christ out of John 15 on some work I did several years ago but updating it
quite a bit.
Then
Charlie Clough will be talking about sanctification in the Old Testament. Mark
Perkins will be talking about mysticism and the spiritual life. We have several
men who are going to be focusing on key passages in Scripture: Romans 6, Romans
7, Romans 8, 1 John. David Dunn is going to do a great paper on the purpose of
1 John and understanding 1 John. Is it talking about fellowship or salvation?
I’m
really pushing these guys to write really good papers and when they get done
and they’re going to rewrite them and make them even better because I have the
idea that we ought to publish this as a book sort of a festschrift. That’s sort
of a fancy term of a type of book that usually published in honor of a
theologian after fifty years of his service. It seems so far away – 2018.
In 8 years will be the 100th anniversary of the publication of Lewis
Sperry Chafer’s He
That is Spiritual. I have two or three other men who are going to be
working on other papers as well that can’t come this year because their wives
are having babies. I mean what kind of spiritual commitment is that? Your
wife’s due date is the 6th of March so you’re not going to come and
give a paper? Some people just
don't understand commitment! So there some other papers that are going to be
done and they aren’t going to be included because these guys can’t come into
conference. So who'd have thought two guys would work out such creative
excuses?
Anyhow,
that's sort of my ambition is that we will be able to put together a really
good a publication that we can then take a couple publishers and see if we can
bring out a volume on the spiritual life in the tradition of Louis Sperry
Chafer’s He
That is Spiritual that will honor him. That's the idea. That’s going to be
a good conference.
The
issue in all of this is: how is a person really sanctified? That's where the
writer of Hebrews is going in this little section. So he goes back here and he looks at these this reference to
these this heretical doctrine here, that there are those who are saying instead
of their being established by grace, the spiritual life is not on the basis of
grace but on the basis of foods. That is, somehow if you eat certain foods
specifically those that are part of the sacrificial Levitical system that this
will move you into a higher spiritual life.
They
had that in the Old Testament just as much as we do today. You always have
people that say, “I've got the key to the victorious Christian life,” or the
higher spiritual life or whatever it is that came out of the holiness and
Keswick movements in the 19th century. But there's no such special
thing that if you just get the right formula that somehow that’s going to
elevate you above the struggle of spiritual warfare and the struggle with sin.
It just isn’t going on happen.
The
warning here in verse 9 is not to be distracted by these false claims of
spirituality basically. In this instance it was food, but we've seen so many
different kinds of aberrations down through the centuries—whether it’s
asceticism; today we have of resurrection of medieval asceticism and
contemplative spirituality. You go to a Protestant bookstore and you will find
as many books on by the medieval mystics (St. John of Damascus, Theresa of
Avila, Thomas a Kempis) than you find at a Roman Catholic bookstore. This has
permeated late 20th century, early 21st century
evangelicalism. We have to be warned against that. But there's always somebody
who's not satisfied with their spiritual life, and they get the secret. They
say, “I have a secret. I figured out the secret. I figured out the magic
formula.” They've got the clue to the spiritual life. So in the 1st
century apparently there were those focusing on food.
In
contrast to that, the writer of Hebrews says in verse 10:
NKJ Hebrews 13:10 We
have an altar from which those who serve the tabernacle have no right to eat.
The
word altar here is used in a different sense. The altar is where the sacrifice
took place. The altar for the Christian is the cross of Christ. That’s where
the sacrifice took place. So he’s using the word altar here in a metaphorical
way. Now that takes us back to the Gospel of John and the bread of life
discourse when Jesus says, “He who eats my flesh and drinks My blood shall be
saved.” He’s using the term “eating and drinking” there as a metaphor for
accepting Him or believing in Him. The eating and drinking of Christ isn’t
literal which is what you have in the Roman Catholic doctrine of
Transubstantiation, that the bread and wine literally change into the literal
body and literal blood of Christ.
I
read a survey the other day that 40% of Roman Catholics didn't know that that's
what the Roman Catholic Church taught about the mass. Forty percent did not
understand that what was going up there when the priest said “hocus pocus” over
the elements. Now you think I'm making fun of them. When the priest says hocus mais corpus
(This is My body)… In medieval England nobody knew Latin. They thought he was
saying hocus pocus. That’s where you get the word hocus pocus. Hocus mais corpus
– see, hocus pocus. When the priest says, “This is my body. This is my
blood”, in Roman Catholic theology it literally changes into the body and the
blood of Christ. So they feed on that spiritual food. They misunderstood the
metaphor. The metaphor for eating and drinking is that anybody can do it and to
eat something or to drink something we accepted it into ourselves. That is the
picture of acceptance or belief. So the writer of Hebrews says:
NKJ Hebrews 13:10
We
as
Christians
have an altar from which those who serve the tabernacle have
no right to eat.
…because
they don't understand that everything that's happening ritually in the temple
or tabernacle service is a picture (a depiction) of what would happen when God
finally resolved the sin problem. It pointed forward to what would happen with
Jesus Christ. They don't have a right to eat at the table we do. We are eating
spiritual food, which is Jesus Christ by faith and trust in Him. They don't
have a right to that table because they've never accepted Christ as their
Savior.
NKJ Hebrews 13:11
For the bodies of those animals, whose blood is brought into the sanctuary by
the high priest for sin, are burned outside the camp.
Now
he's going to make an issue of the fact that those bodies are burned outside
the camp. To understand that we have to understand what went on in the
instructions in Leviticus 16 for Yom Kippur. Leviticus 16 gives all the
descriptions and we've gone through this in detail of what the high priests was
to do on the day of Atonement.
The
first thing that would have to happen is that the high priest as a sinner would
have to be cleansed of sin. He and his family have to be cleansed of sin first.
Initially (verse 3) Aaron was to come into the holy place with the blood of a
young bull as a sin offering and the blood of ram as a burnt offering. So there
is a sin offering and a burnt offering from a young bull and ram. This is
related to his personal cleansing, his ritual cleansing, and the cleansing of
his family.
He
is to dress a certain way.
NKJ Leviticus 16:4
"He shall put the holy linen tunic and the linen trousers on his body; he
shall be girded with a linen sash, and with the linen turban he shall be
attired…
This
was all white. What is interesting is today if you go to a Jewish synagogue on
Yom Kippur the rabbis will be dressed in white linen robes. That derives from
this passage. The white linen robes depict something that is done. The linen
comes from the flax plant. It's not a basis of the human work. It’s not like a
manmade fiber or something of that nature. The whiteness reflects purity. So
this is a physical, literal, visual picture of his sanctification.
He
washes his body in the water, and then he puts on these new clothes. Then he performs
these sacrifices for himself and for his family.
NKJ Leviticus 16:6
" Aaron shall offer the bull as a sin offering, which is for himself, and make atonement for
himself and for his house.
Atonement
has the idea of cleansing or purification for sin. I’ve talked about this
before that the Hebrew word for atonement is kaphar. That had a nice little sound,
memory device. Kaphar
means to cover. There is one Hebrew word kaphar that is the word that is used when Noah
covered the Ark with pitch.
For
many, many, many years it has been thought that kaphar means to cover. But recent
scholarship suggests that there are these two homonyms: two words that are
spelled the same, sound the same but they have a different etymology or
background; and kaphar
1 means to cover. That’s like covering something with pitch. But kaphar 2 has
the idea of cleansing from sin or sanctification or purification. So what's
interesting is when the rabbis who translated the Septuagint, the Greek
translation of the Hebrew Old Testament in the 2nd century or so BC,
many times the word they used to translate kaphar is katharizo, the Greek word for cleansing. They
also translated it with the Greek word hilasterion, which means propitiation. So what
we really have in the word kaphar is a multifaceted term that can summarize all of the
different aspects of what takes place to resolve the sin problem. In some
places it’s cleansing, some places it’s propitiation. But it's both man-ward
and Godward.
The
English word atonement was coined. It is literally at-one-ment, to summarize
the word. There is really no such word like atonement in Hebrew or in the
Greek.
So
the offering is designed to create cleansing purification from sin.
The
next things that Aaron brings is two goats. One goat is destined to be killed
and one goat is destined to be let lose in the wilderness. They cast lots to
determine which will be which. The one that is destined for sacrifice will be
taken as a sin offering. The goat that is a scapegoat is taken and will be released
in the wilderness. The high priest sits down and puts his hand on the head of
both goats. This indicates an identification of the priest with the goat and
identification, substitution and the sin of the nation by virtue of the
representation of the high priest is imputed to the goats. The one goat is
taken and killed because a death is required to pay the penalty for sin.
The
other goat, which has also received the imputation of sin, depicts something
different. He is taken out so far out into the wilderness that he can’t find
his way back; and he is released to depict the fact that the sin problem is
dealt with so completely that these sins are not going to be brought up again.
They are completely dealt with. So that is the picture that is there with the
two goats.
Then
the sin offering is taken. The high priest will take the goat of the sin
offering and takes its blood inside the veil. When we discussed this in
Hebrews, I pointed out that there's some debate over whether the altar of the
incense is outside the veil or inside the veil. I took the position based on a
number of translations that it was probably was just inside the veil, not
outside the veil. The high priest could light the incense and burn it from
outside the veil without necessarily going inside. This was in the Holy of
Holies, and you have the Altar of Incense here and then the Ark of the Covenant
here, which is the main piece of furniture inside the Holy of Holies. The Ark
of the Covenant looked like this with the box, which is made of acacia wood
covered with gold. The lid was pure gold. This is called in the Greek hilasterion,
which is also translated propitiation, the place of propitiation or the Mercy
Seat.
Inside
the box were the symbols of Israel's sin: the broken Ten Commandments, Aaron’s
rod that budded and the manna. Then the high priest would splatter blood on the
Mercy Seat. He doesn't just place it there. He would be splattered it there. So
it was a pretty bloody looking mess after awhile. The picture is the cherubs
looking down upon the Mercy Seat where the blood is, represents God's holiness
and righteousness are satisfied by the shedding of blood or by the death
– the shedding of blood being a metaphor for death.
Now
when that was over with the bodies of the animals that were used in the
sacrifice that was not burned up in a burnt offering. The bodies were then
taken outside of the camp in an unsanctified area, and then they were of burned
up.
NKJ Leviticus 16:27
"The bull for
the sin offering and the goat for the sin offering, whose blood was brought
in to make atonement in the Holy Place, shall be carried outside the camp. And
they shall burn in the fire their skins, their flesh, and their offal.
NKJ Leviticus 16:28
"Then he who burns them shall wash
… because
he’s been out now in unsanctified ground.
his clothes and bathe his body in water, and afterward he
may come into the camp.
So
outside the camp is the place where it is unsanctified.
NKJ Hebrews 13:11 For
the bodies of those animals,
That’s
the bull and the goat that are used on the day of Atonement.
whose blood is brought into the sanctuary by the high priest
for sin,
That
is for a substitute or atonement for sin.
are burned outside the camp.
“Outside
the camp” is now going to be picked up as an important illustration.
NKJ Hebrews 13:12 Therefore
Jesus also, that He might sanctify the people
There
is that word which means to be set apart to God. Here it’s talking about
positional sanctification, not experiential sanctification. Positional
sanctification is what happens when our sins are paid for; and that is first
applied to the individual believer. He is positionally set apart by virtue of
his identification with Christ and in His death, burial, and resurrection which
brings in the baptism by the Holy Spirit.
with His own blood, suffered outside the gate.
Here
is a map of Jerusalem as it existed in the early part of the first century AD.
The black dotted line here represents the gate, the wall of Jerusalem at the
time of Christ. It comes down here from the north to the south and then makes
the right-angled turn going this way and around the palace of Herod which is
where the citadel of David and the Joppa Gate now stand. It heads south and
around the southern part of the city and around the southern end of the Old
city of David and then back north to the Temple Mount. Now Golgotha (the
traditional location where the Church of the Holy Sepulture is) is located
right here. This is the traditional location.
For
years nobody knew about this wall. The wall that we knew about was this wall
that was begun by Herod and was completed in the AD 40. The problem there was
that Golgotha then would be inside the gate. But Hebrews says that He suffered
outside to gate. Nevertheless this was the traditional site of the Church of
the Holy Sepulcher where most people believe Jesus was crucified. This portion
of the wall here is about maybe 75 yards to the east of the traditional site of
Golgotha, which actually is a little more south in this area.
They
were excavating in the basement in the basement of the Russian Orthodox Church
and they discovered a huge gate and part of the wall that existed there. It's a
large gate. Then just to the right of it there is a very much smaller gate
which is referred to as the eye of the needle so that after dark when they
closed the big gate if you were just an individual instead of opening the big
gate you would just come into the eye of the needle gate. That has nothing to
do with that verse in the Scripture that says it's easier for a rich man to get
into heaven than for somebody to go through the eye of a needle –
different needle word. It is a different needle word. But what that did was it
confirmed the fact that the traditional location of the Church of the Holy
Sepulcher was outside of the wall and that indeed up until 40 AD this was the
western wall of the city that ran just to the east of the side of Golgotha
which means Jesus was crucified outside of the camp as the writer of Hebrews
indicates here in Hebrews 13:11. So He is outside the camp in unsanctified
territory.
that He might sanctify the people with His own blood,
suffered outside the gate.
That
is by means of His death. The concept of “with His blood” always indicates
death.
Therefore
in verse 13 he draws an application.
NKJ Hebrews 13:13 Therefore
let us go forth to Him, outside the camp, bearing His reproach.
…not
inside which is dominated by the Judaism of the Pharisees which is what these
Jewish background believers former priests wanted to do. But he is saying:
go forth to Him, outside the camp, bearing His reproach.
…being
identified with Jesus and therefore becoming a reproach to the Jews who had
rejected Him and those who were inside the city.
Then
he makes an interesting application in verse 14.
NKJ Hebrews 13:14 For
here we have no continuing city, but we seek the one to come.
As
Christians we don’t focus on the city of Jerusalem. Our focus is on the New
Jerusalem that is in the future. This is the city that is built without hands
that Abraham looked forward to. This is the New Jerusalem that is related to
the heavenly Mount Zion, not the earthly Mount Sinai which was the focal point
of the illustration at the end of Hebrews 12.
Next
time we’ll come back and pick up at verse 15 and work our way toward the end of
Hebrews.
Now
what I wanted to do when we finish this up is we will complete our study of
Hebrews probably next time or come very close to it going from Hebrews 13:15
down to verse 25. We will probably complete that next time. That will be the
next to last lesson. Then the last lesson will be a final review, a flyover
summarizing what we've gone over in Hebrews covering it again in one lesson. So
that covers the next two Thursday nights. Remember next Thursday night 7:30.
Then the next Thursday night we’ll finish up. Then the next Thursday night
we’ll start Romans – God willing.
Let’s
bow our heads in closing prayer.