145 - Christ: Redeemer, High Priest, Mediator [B]

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 1^st. 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. Theroot 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 15^th 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. 

Illustrations