Why Was There A Day Of Atonement PLUS People Giving Personal Sacrifice's?

[Billiards Ball]

On 2/1/2022 at 12:20 PM, Open7 said:

I’ve been reading Leviticus and wondered why is there a yearly day of atonement for the sins of the nation of Israel, plus on top of that families/individuals had to bring sacrifices for their sins regularly. Why not just one of these?

My best guess is that the day of atonement was more to cover the sins of Israel in an overall kind of way, while families bringing sacrifices was more specific. Not the best answer but maybe it’s something like this?

 

Thanks

The sacrifices are pictures of Christ. People who trust Christ once for salvation have assurance, and born again Christians who sin after salvation come back to the same Christ more than annually for love, mercy and peace.

[Cntrysner]

2 hours ago, Josheb said:

Since you have in obedience to the truth purified your souls for a sincere love of the brethren, fervently love one another from the heart,  for you have been born again not of seed which is perishable but imperishable, that is, through the living and enduring word of God.

The Spirit which is Christ was left out of your translation, seems to me you would have a problem with that since it is impossible to obey the truth without the Spirit and the fact that only Christ as our High Priest can purify.

  1Pe 1:22  Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren, see that ye love one another with a pure heart fervently:

[Anne2]

4 hours ago, Josheb said:

Great observation. 

Jesus is the Passover Lamb, the true lamb who was killed on Passover so that death would be defeated, that it would not have victory over us but we over it. Yes? Jesus is the perfect blemish-free sacrifical lamb that takes away the sin of the world and it by him that the new covenant (which is really an old covenant) was established. When God first broached His covenant with Abraham a vision was had of God Himself walking through the torn animals. Through the imagery of a suzerain covenant God pledged His own life in fealty to Himself when promising Abraham would be the father of many nations through his seed - which is Jesus, not Israel. 

@Open7 asks, "Why is there a yearly day of atonement for the sins of the nation of Israel, plus on top of that families/individuals had to bring sacrifices for their sins regularly. Why not just one of these?" The answer to that question lies in understanding the whole of the sacrificial "system" and they explanation God gave. Any theological position apart from the divine explanations till likely beget division. For example, God told the Israelites to remember the Passover even though they would soon no longer be slaves. They were nearing the end of the 400 year slavery about which God had told Abraham. He knew it was coming. If they headed God's word they the 400-year slaves about to be free knew there was a promised land. The gospel had been preached to Abraham but it had not been preached to the slaves 400 years later as it had to their patriarch. They had a record of the vision (or soon would when Moses put the Pentateuch into writing). 

All the Law, Prophets, and Psalms testify to Christ. 

So, one sacrifice will provide atonement. One sacrifice will conquer death. One sacrifice inaugurates and seals the covenant. 

NONE of those Old Testament sacrifices does it. They are all foreshadows of something to come much further down the road of history. They had to wait centuries for an explanation, even though the means of understanding was always there. The righteous live by faith . It's all there in the New Testament. Hebrews 9 especially covers these dynamics of Levitcus (which is what the op reports to have been reading). 

 

Hebrews 9:1-28
Now even the first covenant had regulations of divine worship and the earthly sanctuary.  For there was a tabernacle prepared, the outer one, in which were the lampstand and the table and the sacred bread; this is called the holy place.  Behind the second veil there was a tabernacle which is called the Holy of Holies,  having a golden altar of incense and the ark of the covenant covered on all sides with gold, in which was a golden jar holding the manna, and Aaron's rod which budded, and the tables of the covenant;  and above it were the cherubim of glory overshadowing the mercy seat; but of these things we cannot now speak in detail.  Now when these things have been so prepared, the priests are continually entering the outer tabernacle performing the divine worship,  but into the second, only the high priest enters once a year, not without taking blood, which he offers for himself and for the sins of the people committed in ignorance.  The Holy Spirit is signifying this, that the way into the holy place has not yet been disclosed while the outer tabernacle is still standing,  which is a symbol for the present time. Accordingly both gifts and sacrifices are offered which cannot make the worshiper perfect in conscience,  since they relate only to food and drink and various washings, regulations for the body imposed until a time of reformation.  But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things to come, He entered through the greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this creation;  and not through the blood of goats and calves, but through His own blood, He entered the holy place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption.  For if the blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkling those who have been defiled sanctify for the cleansing of the flesh,  how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without blemish to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?  For this reason He is the mediator of a new covenant, so that, since a death has taken place for the redemption of the transgressions that were committed under the first covenant, those who have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.  For where a covenant is, there must of necessity be the death of the one who made it.  For a covenant is valid only when men are dead, for it is never in force while the one who made it lives.  Therefore, even the first covenant was not inaugurated without blood.  For when every commandment had been spoken by Moses to all the people according to the Law, he took the blood of the calves and the goats, with water and scarlet wool and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people,  saying, "This is the blood of the new covenant which God commanded you." And in the same way he sprinkled both the tabernacle and all the vessels of the ministry with the blood.  And according to the Law, one may almost say, all things are cleansed with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.  Therefore it was necessary for the copies of the things in the heavens to be cleansed with these, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.  For Christ did not enter a holy place made with hands, a mere copy of the true one, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us;  nor was it that He would offer Himself often, as the high priest enters the holy place year by year with blood that is not his own.  Otherwise, He would have needed to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now once at the consummation of the ages He has been manifested to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself.  And inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment,  so Christ also, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time for salvation without reference to sin, to those who eagerly await Him.

1 Peter 1:17-23
If you address as Father the One who impartially judges according to each one's work, conduct yourselves in fear during the time of your stay on earth; knowing that you were not redeemed with perishable things like silver or gold from your futile way of life inherited from your forefathers, but with precious blood, as of a lamb unblemished and spotless, the blood of Christ.  For He was foreknown before the foundation of the world, but has appeared in these last times for the sake of you  who through Him are believers in God, who raised Him from the dead and gave Him glory, so that your faith and hope are in God.  Since you have in obedience to the truth purified your souls for a sincere love of the brethren, fervently love one another from the heart,  for you have been born again not of seed which is perishable but imperishable, that is, through the living and enduring word of God.

 

The true sin-atoning, death-defeating, new covenant reconciling sacrifice was foreknown before the world was created but revealed in the first century, a time of bondage much like the one from which those to whom Leviticus was given had just escaped. 

 

Oh boy. The way I view these things are quite different than yourself. 

We agree I believe that of the various sacrifices, all of them were shadows of his one time sacrifice. yes? Therefore, It is my opinion we should not confine him to only one of those sacrifices. The passover first and foremost connects Both covenants to Abraham. The passover memorial feast is a memorial of the fulfillment to God's faithfulness made with their father Abraham. It is the blood that spared the firstborn. Not all Israelites were subject to death, but the firstborn. 

Our differences probably would be in the two covenants made with Abraham, and how we view those. God made the covenant  made as found in Genesis 15 with Abraham. Which covenant was to give Abraham heirs of his own loins. 

 

Gen 15:3  And Abram said, Behold, to me thou hast given no seed: and, lo, one born in my house is mine heir.
4  And, behold, the word of the LORD came unto him, saying, This shall not be thine heir; but he that shall come forth out of thine own bowels shall be thine heir.

**distinctions of that one covenant
1. So this is about Heirs, to what God rewards to Abraham.

13)Thy seed

14) they

16)fourth generation of his seed..

Ex. 15:13  And he said unto Abram, Know of a surety that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs, and shall serve them; and they shall afflict them four hundred years;
14  And also that nation, whom they shall serve, will I judge: and afterward shall they come out with great substance.
15  And thou shalt go to thy fathers in peace; thou shalt be buried in a good old age.
16  But in the fourth generation they shall come hither again: for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet full.
17 And it came to pass, that, when the sun went down, and it was dark, behold a smoking furnace, and a burning lamp that passed between those pieces. {a burning … : Heb. a lamp of fire }
18  In the same day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates:
18 thy seed (obviously not the first-third generation is the seed)

But right in the middle of it all, what does God say To Abraham himself personally?

15  And thou shalt go to thy fathers in peace; thou shalt be buried in a good old age.

He will die. 

Not only will Abraham be dead when this covenant comes into force, Isaac, and Jacob and the patriarchs are not included in this covenant.

See Deut 5:3 Covenant not made with their fathers

 Act 7:5 Gave none inheritance in the land, not even to set his foot on.

Heb 11:13

(note) the priesthood were also not heirs with Israel. They were taken instead of the firstborn. No inheritance in their land. The priesthood was their inheritance)

So, from this point on Abraham had to believe in a resurrection from the dead to inherit himself from God. Not only himself but also Isaac, Jacob, and the third generation as well.

And so it is with Joseph knew as well....

Ge 50:25  And Joseph took an oath of the children of Israel, saying, God will surely visit you, and ye shall carry up my bones from hence.

Ex 1:6  And Joseph died, and all his brethren, and all that generation.

Ex 13:19  And Moses took the bones of Joseph with him: for he had straitly sworn the children of Israel, saying, God will surely visit you; and ye shall carry up my bones away hence with you.

Isaac, jacob, and Joseph, are heirs of the covenant made in Genesis 17

Which covenant is the promise of Kings to both Abraham and Sarah

Ge 17:6  And I will make thee exceeding fruitful, and I will make nations of thee, and kings shall come out of thee.
Ge 17:16  And I will bless her, and give thee a son also of her: yea, I will bless her, and she shall be a mother of nations; kings of people shall be of her. {she … : Heb. she shall become nations }
Then Jacob the seed of Isaac from where the fourth generation comes.

Ge 35:11  And God said unto him, I am God Almighty: be fruitful and multiply; a nation and a company of nations shall be of thee, and kings shall come out of thy loins;
A nation, and a company of nations, Kings from him. He inherited the promise of the eternal covenant of Genesis 17 Which was always, by royal seed, and resurrection.

Edited March 11, 2022 by Anne2

[Cntrysner]

45 minutes ago, Josheb said:

What is the topic of this discussion? 

Sacrifice and atonement obviously. The Spirit of Christ is the result of the sacrifice of His body that He as High Priest placed on the altar of God and only the ashes of His sacrifice can purify and only he can apply them.

I thought you would notice the fault in the translation you provided.

Your translation in which His Spirit is omitted:

Since you have in obedience to the truth purified your souls for a sincere love of the brethren, fervently love one another from the heart,

Better translation:

1Pe 1:22  Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren, see that ye love one another with a pure heart fervently:

[Willa]

Please limit all replies to about 3 paragraphs or 25 lines so that they may be discussed.  Very few people bother to read the long replies. 

[Anne2]

35 minutes ago, Josheb said:

Yep.

What is NOT the topic of this discussion?

That is why I said oh boy, when I responded to you earlier. To far afield To give you a proper answer. And then to top it off, i boo booed lol. What I said about Genesis 15, should have been Genesis 17. What I meant is from Genesis 15 on Abraham was told he would be dead. Therefore the promise of the land in Genesis 17, had to be AFTER he, and Isaac, Jacob and the patriarchs were dead. What I meant by confining him to one sacrifice is...to make that sacrifice for sin, IMO blurrs or dulls, it's distinctiveness. Firstborn status can be passed to another son. 

[Cntrysner]

58 minutes ago, Josheb said:

Yep.

What is NOT the topic of this discussion?

The Spirit of God (Christ) which was also not found in OT sacrifices, is that what you're looking for?   

[Cntrysner]

1 minute ago, Josheb said:

That is not an answer to my question. I will ask it again. 

What is NOT the topic of this discussion? 

I'll even provide a hint to aid in answering that question. There's content in your post to me that is not relevant to this discussion. It should stay out of the conversation. 

 

 

What is NOT the topic of this discussion?

The fact that the translation you provided smacks of self purification by obedience to the written word while excluding the Spirit of Christ our Sacrifice.

What you're looking for?

Your translation in which His Spirit is omitted:

Since you have in obedience to the truth purified your souls for a sincere love of the brethren, fervently love one another from the heart,

Better translation:

1Pe 1:22  Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren, see that ye love one another with a pure heart fervently:

[Anne2]

1 hour ago, Josheb said:

That question was not asked of you, Anne. 

The other post has made two mistakes and neither has any place in this discussion. The first mistake was framing the post in the form of a personal attack: "...seems to me you would have a problem with that..." That's just wrong. The second problem is the use of the KJV in this particular instance. The verse in question, 1 Peter 1:22, states,  

1 Peter 1:22-23
Since you have in obedience to the truth purified your souls for a sincere love of the brethren, fervently love one another from the heart,  for you have been born again not of seed which is perishable but imperishable, that is, through the living and enduring word of God. 

But in the KJV it reads, 

1 Peter 1:22-23
Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren, see that ye love one another with a pure heart fervently:  Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.

 

The problem is there is no "spirit" in the Greek manuscripts!!! That is just as much the case in the Textus Receptus as in the other manuscripts. In this case there is no difference between the Alexandrian and Byzantine, Majority or Critical, Stephanus, Tischendorf, Scrivener, Wescott and Hort - NONE OF THEM DIFFER ON THIS POINT! There is no "pneuma" in 1 Peter 1:22. The scriptures were not written in 17th century English as as good a translation as the KJV is it is not a perfect translation. On this particular occasion the other poster has failed to check his facts, chosen to assert a flawed translation, chosen to word his protest in the form of poster not post, and it's just plain wrong to create a disagreement under those circumstances. 

All the more so since the problem wasn't just unnecessary and easily avoided; it is also very easy to correct. Just apologize. Let's see if that happens. 

The answer to the first question: What is this discussion about? is the matter of the day of atonement as articulated in this op. The answer to the second question: What is this discussion NOT about? is.....

 

 

Not Josheb. 

 

The discussion is not about the posters. And if it were about the posters I do not have a problem! I don't have a problem using the NAS. I could have and might have used the KJV (I did so in at least one post in this thread) but on that occasion the KJV is the one translation to avoid and anyone who has an idolatrous ideological allegiance to the KJV over and against the Greek and other posters should be prepared to examine their own posts. 

No, it is not. Some posters may have problems with "proper answers" but I am not one of them, nothing you've postered is far afield, you've done a marvelous job holding your end of the conversation we were having (even though there is some perception of disagreement) with manners and respect, and there is absolutely no reason for letting the other poster's contents ruin it. 

While I appreciate the correction (I hope everyone lurking is making note of this) but it doesn't change my reply. Whether we appeal to Abram when God first called him out of Ur, or when He first broached the covenant with any detail, or when He expanded, explained, and further clarified that covenant 15 or 17 chapters into the witness of whole scripture is still to late in the Bible to beging, the covenant with Abraham is still a reflection of Christ crucified and resurrected, all sacrifices - those related specifically to sin or not - still foreshadow Christ, and I did not confine Jesus. 

What does the NEW TESTAMENT tell us about the "land"? 

 

I'll give you the first opportunity to answer that question. The newer revelation explains the older revelation. The newer revelation reveals what was veiled and hidden in the older revelation. It is inappropriate for any and all Christians to ignore or neglect what the newer revelation says about the older revelation (even though it happens quite often) so let's have that conversation. Just try to keep it op-relevant . Surely we can agree that any view of the land that runs into conflict with the New Testament's testimony should not be accepted but discarded. 

 

What does the New Testament say about the land promised Abraham in Genesis 17? 

Ok Josheb, I believe the covenants are distinct. We all probably could agree, one speaks of eternal, vs temporal, carnal, vs spirit etc. But I see those covenants more distinct in a different way. Which would take this thread off track into a discussion of covenantalism. That has been my underlying point. My view would diverge from such notions as bilateral vs unilateral. Also ideas of conditional vs unconditional as usually understood and used. As you mentioned a treaty, I knew you view them differently than me. Doesn't make me correct, doesn't make you incorrect on these issues. But it does make the discussion go far afield from the op. 

 

Edited March 12, 2022 by Anne2

[branchesofHim]

Atonement is personal and sacrifice is corporate in the old covenant. The new covenant is both. Shalom