Come and Go Sunday Lesson with Dr. Frank Carver & Dr. Herb Prince from First Church of the Nazarene in San Diego, California, United States

Come and Go Sunday Lesson with Dr. Frank Carver & Dr. Herb Prince from First Church of the Nazarene in San Diego, California, United States

GOD HAS SPOKEN

“Was Christ’s Death a Sacrifice?”[We use the title of Marcus Barth’s excellent biblical study, Was Christ’s Death a Sacrifice? (Oliver and Boyd, 1961). I am unaware of the circumstances that prompted him to write the `book.]

Part One: the Old Covenant

(Hebrews Twenty-Seven)[The following outline is that of Kevin L. Anderson, Hebrews: A Commentary in the Wesleyan Tradition, New Beacon Bible Commentary (Kansas City: Beacon Hill Press, 2013), 5-6.

I. Hearing the Apostle and High Priest of Our Confession: Hebrews 1:1—4:13

II. Jesus’ Superior High Priesthood: Hebrews 4:14—10:18

1. The Qualifications of the Great High Priest (4:14—5:10).
2. Preparing for Advanced Teaching on Christ’s High Priesthood (5:11—6:20)
3. The High Priest like Melchizedek: The Son Perfected Forever (7:1-28).
4. The Superior Ministry of the Son’s High Priesthood (8:1—10:18)

1. Introduction to Christ’s Superior Ministry (8:1-13).
2. The Better and More Perfect Tabernacle (9:1-14).
3. Christ’s Sacrificial Death Inaugurated the New Covenant (9:15-28).
4. Christ’s One Obedient Offering Perfects Worshippers Forever (10:1-18).

III. Call to Persevering Faith and Acceptable Worship: Hebrews 10:19--13:25]

Hebrews 9:1 Now the first covenant had both regulations for worship and a Holy Place here on earth. 2 A tent was set up, the outer one, which was called the Holy Place; in it were the menorah, the table and the Bread of the Presence.3 Behind the second parokhet was a tent called the Holiest Place, 4 which had the golden altar for burning incense and the Ark of the Covenant, entirely covered with gold. In the Ark were the gold jar containing the man, Aharon’s rod that sprouted and the stone Tablets of the Covenant; 5 and above it were the k’ruvim representing the Sh’khinah, casting their shadow on the lid of the Ark — but now is not the time to discuss these things in detail.

6 With things so arranged, the cohanim go into the outer tent all the time to discharge their duties; 7 but only the cohen hagadol enters the inner one; and he goes in only once a year, and he must always bring blood, which he offers both for himself and for the sins committed in ignorance by the people. 8 By this arrangement, the Ruach HaKodesh showed that so long as the first Tent had standing, the way into the Holiest Place was still closed. 9 This symbolizes the present age and indicates that the conscience of the person performing the service cannot be brought to the goal by the gifts and sacrifices he offers. 10 For they involve only food and drink and various ceremonial washings — regulations concerning the outward life, imposed until the time for God to reshape the whole structure.

Hebrews 9:1, 9: Now even the first covenant had regulations for worship

and an earthly sanctuary. . . . This is a symbol of the present time

As I approached Hebrews 9, lines from a Watt’s hymn out of my boyhood in a small rural Methodist Church leaped into my mind:

Alas! And did my Saviour bleed,

And did my sovereign die?

Would He devote that sacred head

For such a worm as I?[This line was later changed in our hymnals to read “For sinners such as I.” Somebody did not like Watts’ “worm as I”—Too Calvinistic!]

At the cross, at the cross,

Where I first saw the light,

And the burden of my heart rolled away,

It was there by faith I received my sight,

And now I am happy all the day (Isaac Watts, 1707).

Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins (9:22).

Introduction

Not many years ago, Nancy Hardison, a retired PLNU professor home for a brief period from volunteer service in Kenya, approached me with a question that disturbed her. She had heard from some in her church circles that Jesus’ death was not to be understood as a sacrifice. Her question stemmed from the fact that such an affirmation as “without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins” (9:22) was offensive to modern sensibilities. It was said by many in the mainline scholarly and ecclesiastical realm that Jesus did not understand his approaching death as sacrificial or even salvific (saving, atoning) for that matter; this was only a post-Easter formulation to be judged on its own merits.[See the discussion in Marcus J. Borg and N. T. Wright, The Meaning of Jesus: Two Visions (New York: HarperOne, 1999), 79ff. Marcus Borg passed away on January 21 of this year at the age of 72 of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis in his Oregon home. A question: Is it possible that an ignorance by Jesus of the true meaning of his death would enhance the extent and wonder of his Incarnation?]

“Was Jesus’ death a sacrifice?” The objections to contemporary Christians understanding Jesus death as a blood-sacrifice are many: such a concept is primitive and antiquated--even immoral with its overtones of a vengeful punishing God who exacts the last drop of blood and pound of flesh from an innocent victim. As Herb Prince interpreted René Girard, “a God of love” would “not make a secret pact with his Son that calls for a murder in order to satisfy God’s wrath.”[Herbert Prince, “Sacrificial Substitution” (February 1, 2015), 4.] We cannot deny, as Herb wrote, that it is “clear as we have worked through Hebrews . . . that there is a strand of implied violence that runs through the account without calling attention to itself.”[Prince, “Sacrificial Substitution,” 4.]

As we are all well aware, the New Testament and the Hebrews’ author in particular say an emphatic “Yes” to our question, “Was Jesus’ death a sacrifice?”[But Prince quotes Girard as saying that “at no point in the Gospels is the death of Jesus defined as a sacrifice.” “Sacrificial Substitution,” 6, fn. 10. For now, we leave that question open.] With this “yes” we agree. So our question as we probe Hebrews 9 becomes, “What does the post-resurrection New Testament and the author to the Hebrews in particular really mean by their sacrificial imagery with its roots deep in the Old Testament tabernacle cultic worship?

When it comes to the death of Jesus as an atoning act, we have all encountered in our own evangelical and holiness heritage[We use the example closest to us, but our theological and ecclesiastic heritage is not alone at this crucial point.] the fact that many of us—preachers and lay folk--have pushed the various biblical metaphors applied to Jesus’ death, shall we say, to unbiblical extremes. Although there is an element of sacred truth in every metaphor, we have asked such questions as “To whom was God paying a “ransom” (Mark 10:45) when he gave up his Son to be executed to redeem us? The Devil?

Or when “our sake” (2 Cor. 5:21) is interpreted as the “substitution” of Jesus’ death for ours, seen as God’s avenging punishment for our offenses against him being inflicted on an innocent Jesus rather than on us to somehow “satisfy” his anger? Or, when the death of Jesus viewed as propitiatory is portrayed as necessary to appease the wrath of an angry God. Or again, to be “justified” (Rom. 3:24) or acquitted in God’s courtroom is seen as basically a legal transaction—how God looks at us, not how we really are?—our sins are “covered by the blood” as the hymn has it, merely hiding our continuing sinfulness from God?—God looks at Jesus, not us! And we could go on.

To come back to our core question, How should we understand the Hebrew writer’s witness to Jesus’ “sacrifice of himself”[Hebrews 9:26.] in its true biblical intention. This is the probing inquiry that drives our three part study which we pursue as we look again at our writer’s brief description of

I.

The Worship [MinistryThe Greek noun latreia (9:1, 6) and its cognate verb, latreuō (9:9, 14), can take the meanings of serve, minister, or worship. See Paul’s meaningful use of the noun in Romans 12:1.] of the Old Covenant[This is the title used by Luke Timothy Johnson, Hebrews, A Commentary (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2006), 215. ]

9:1-10

A.

“an earthly sanctuary”

9:1-5

The author to the Hebrews opens this chapter with a quick portrayal of worship under the old covenant taken from his reading of the Greek LXX (Septuagint). As given by Moses in Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers, our writer describes the “regulations for worship” beginning with the furnishings and arrangement of the wilderness tent (vv. 1-5). He then focuses on the ritual of the Day of Atonement (vv. 6-10). Although he is not describing the worship in the Temple of his own day, if it still stands, he and his readers cannot help but have it in mind. We begin with the construction of the tent in the wilderness, what the writer to the Hebrews intentionally designates as the “earthly sanctuary.”

1Now even the first covenant had regulations for worship and an earthly sanctuary. 2For a tent was constructed, the first one, in which were the lampstand, the table, and the bread of the Presence; this is called the Holy Place. 3Behind the second curtain was a tent called the Holy of Holies. 4In it stood the golden altar of incense and the ark of the covenant overlaid on all sides with gold, in which there were a golden urn holding the manna, and Aaron’s rod that budded, and the tablets of the covenant; 5above it were the cherubim of glory overshadowing the mercy seat. Of these things we cannot speak now in detail.

Our author has selected, shaped, and simplified for his readers a mass of complex material in his LXX sources for his purpose of comparing New Covenant worship with that of the Old. As the writer to the Hebrews himself copped out with his “of these things we cannot speak now in detail,” we too make no attempt to harmonize his account, one that “has a certain intrinsic antiquarian charm,”[Johnson, Hebrews, 217.] with the details in Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers. We are only interested in the author’s main or concern as he prepares for what he really wants to set forth in 9:11ff.

Verses 1-5 present the scene of Levitical worship. Significant is that the worship takes place in an “earthly sanctuary” implying a future comparison with a heavenly sanctuary. In this “earthly sanctuary” there was a first tent designated as “the Holy Place” which was separated by a “curtain”[The term “curtain” was mentioned earlier in 6:19 and will appear again in 10:20.] from a second tent “called the Holy of Holies.” Most important was the presence in the second tent of “the ark of the covenant” containing “a golden urn holding the manna, and Aaron’s rod that budded, and the tablets of the covenant”— three items placed there as evidence of God’s preserving, protecting, and covenanting presence with his people.[For the manna see Exod. 16:13, and for the rod of Aaron Num. 17:16-26. ]

Above the ark were “the cherubim of glory overshadowing the mercy seat.” The tern “Glory” refers to the presence of God who would meet Moses (the priest as his representative?) between the two cherubim and speak God’s word for the people of Israel (Exod. 25:22).[God’s instructions to Moses in Exod. 25:21-22 were, “You shall put the mercy seat on top of the ark; and in the ark you shall put the covenant that I shall give you. There I will meet with you, and from above the mercy seat, from between the two cherubim that are on the ark of the covenant, I will deliver to you all my commands for the Israelites.”] The lid or cover of the ark was known as “the mercy seat” and was the place where the blood of atonement was sprinkled by the high priest on the Day of Atonement (Lev. 16:1-15).[ “Mercy seat” is the Greek hilastērion found elsewhere in the New Testament only in Rom. 3:25 translated by NRSV as “a sacrifice [place] of atonement.”  NASB has “propitiation.”] Johnson points out that the “arrangement of ark, mercy seat, and cherubim is also understood to be God’s throne from which he rules” adding that that such “helps us understand Hebrews’ language about Jesus’ exaltation to God’s right hand.”[Johnson, Hebrews, 221.]

B.

“the priests go continually”

9:6-10

Our author, having briefly described the place of worship in verses 1-5, now proceeds to explain the worship or priestly ministry that takes place in this “earthly sanctuary”:

Such preparations having been made, the priests go continually into the first tent to carry out their ritual duties; 7but only the high priest goes into the second, and he but once a year, and not without taking the blood that he offers for himself and for the sins committed unintentionally by the people. 8By this the Holy Spirit indicates that the way into the sanctuary has not yet been disclosed as long as the first tent is still standing. 9This is a symbol of the present time, during which gifts and sacrifices are offered that cannot perfect the conscience of the worshiper, 10but deal only with food and drink and various baptisms, regulations for the body imposed until the time comes to set things right.

What first appears is the contrast between what takes place in each of the two tents. Into the first tent, the priests go regularly all year long with the purpose of performing “their ritual duties.” But into the second tent, only the high priest can enter and that only once a year on the Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur)—and that not without blood, “the indispensable medium for atonement.”[Anderson, Hebrews, 244.:] Of supreme significance was the fact that the high priest first offers the blood “for himself,” “atoning for his own sin and that of his household.”[Anderson, Hebrews, 244.] And only then would he offer the blood for “the sins committed unintentionally by the people.”

Just what sins did the offering of blood on the Day of Atonement cover for the people? And what is the concern of the writer to the Hebrews? On the one hand Leviticus 16:16 speaks of the rite covering “all their sins” and 16:30 affirms that “on this day atonement shall be made for you, to cleanse you; from all your sins you shall be clean before the LORD.” But on the other hand, Anderson states that

Hebrews rightly discerns atonement is limited to unintentional sins (. . . ).[Lev. 4:1-5:19; Num. 15:22-29.] Those who sinned defiantly were subject to the death penalty (. . .)[Exod. 21:14, Num. 35:20-21, 30-31; Deut. 17:12.] or its equivalent—exclusion from the people of God (. . .).[Num. 15:30-31] Yom Kippur could not benefit them.

Anderson then concludes that Hebrews

maintains the rigorist position that rebellious or high-handed sins are unpardonable (. . .).[Hebrews 6:4-8; 10:26-31; 12:17.  We have already discussed the meaning of 6:4-8 in the thought of Hebrews, and will consider 10:26 and 12:17 in later lessons. For 6:4-8 (-12) see “The Education of the Christian: Part Two: Hebrews Twenty,” given September 7, 2014. ] This is not simply because such sins are deliberate and with full knowledge (. . .),[ See Hebrews 10:26.] but because they defy the covenant itself and treat its promise and blessings with contempt.[Anderson, Hebrews, 244.]

All of this, interprets our biblical author, “is a symbol of the present time,” a parabolē is his term, a type or illustration of what the Hebrews’ readers are now to know in “the present time.” This general truth is clear, but what he says to say what he has to say is not so clear. We present a “possible” clarification of the linguistic puzzle that begins with “the way into the sanctuary has not yet been disclosed as long as the first tent is still standing.” First, it is “the Holy Spirit” who speaks in, with, and through Scripture in Hebrews as the verb “disclosed” here implies, clarifying what is otherwise obscure or hidden.

Second, our author, seemingly merging his “symbol” with its interpretation, has the Scripture saying that as long as one continues to trust in the worship of the ”first tent,[That is, “the first tent is still standing.”] it remains only the shadow, for the way into the true sanctuary has not yet been disclosed.” The emphasis with “the sanctuary,” though probably not exclusive in reference to the wilderness tent, reflects the image of “the Holy of Holies” (v. 3) as his “symbol” or illustration.

Third, for the readers of Hebrews in “the present time,” the continued offering of “gifts and sacrifices . . . cannot perfect the conscience of the worshiper.” Such worship is only temporary and earthly, dealing “only with food and drink and various baptisms, regulations for the body imposed until the time comes to set things right.” The meaning is that such regulations cannot perfect the worshiper with respect to conscience; it is the worshipper in Hebrews who is to be perfected as the wording here properly indicates.[The NRSV “perfect the conscience” does not adequately translate the Greek text as the writer returns to the use of the perfection terminology that plays such a significant role in Hebrews. .]

What worship in the “earthly sanctuary” (v. 1) could not do, Hebrews will present as a perfection to be understood in “personal terms (it concerns every individual) and in spiritual/moral terms (it is to affect their inner moral awareness).”[Johnson, Hebrews, 226.] For, as the writer is about to describe, finally, the “time . . . to set things right,” is “the present time,” indeed it is “a season of correction.”[ Johnson, Hebrews, 225.] In the author’s presentation, it is the time when Christ has come “as a high priest of the good things that have come” (v. 11) that the writer is about to describe in terms of a New Covenant (vv.11-28).

Conclusion

As we anticipate where our writer is going next, the thought comes that Kevin Anderson, in his commentary of our first choice, often refers to the writer to the Hebrews as “the preacher.” Although we accepted the designation of the author as such a person early in this series, I, for some reason, did not choose thus far to use it, as convenient as that would have been.

But our author was indeed a preacher, a “preacher” par excellence! The theologian of a century ago who always speaks to me when I read him, Peter Taylor Forsyth, talking about the preacher’s authority, accurately characterizes our Hebrews’ author. Forsyth writes that the

preacher’s place in the Church is sacramental. . . . He mediates the word to the Church from faith to faith, from his faith to theirs, from one stage of their common faith to another. . . . He is a living element in Christ’s hand (broken, if need be) for the distribution and increment of Grace. He is laid on the altar of the Cross.[The italics are mine. P. T. Forsyth, Positive Preaching and the Modern Mind (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1980 [Lyman Beecher Lectures on Preaching, Yale University, 1907]), 80. ]

____________________________