THE EFFECT OF SACRIFICE

THE EFFICACY OF SACRIFICES

THE EFFICACY OF OLD TESTAMENT SACRIFICES

Historically the Levitical element was as essential to the religious life and development of Israel as the prophetic. It formed the framework, as it were, without which the continuity of the religious life of the Jewish nation would have been impossible. No valid distinction can be made between the Levitical (or ceremonial) and prophetic (or moral) elements of the Old Testament, since each was divinely instituted to serve its proper purpose. Such a separation is unbiblical and foreign to Old Testament thought.

Throughout Israel's history the moral was taught through the ceremonial, the ceremonial being the necessary vehicle for the expression of the moral. The Jewish sacrifices were, by divine intention, to reflect the moral truths of obedience, self-sacrifice, self-dedication, love for and devotion to God, recognition of sin, repentance, and many other spiritual conceptions.

Throughout the Old Testament the moral interprets the ritual and the ceremonial gives meaning to the ethical. It is indeed a narrow view of Old Testament sacrifice to fail to see in its institution moral, ethical, and spiritual elements. 

There was pervading the idea of sacrifice a principle of righteousness.

Sacrifice was the divinely appointed means of securing a right standing before God in the Mosaic dispensation, and it is faulty hermeneutics to interpret Old Testament sacrificial concepts in terms of New Testament theology alone.                                                               By HOBART E. FREEMAN, TH. D..

 
THE EFFICACY OF THE SACRIFICE IN THE NEW TESTAMENT  OF JESUS CHRIST

SEE FOLLOWING MY PAGES ON SACRIFICES

It cannot be overemphasized that the interpreter of Old Testament thought, practices, and theological concepts must constantly remind himself that the Old Testament Hebrew did not have at his disposal the Epistle to the Romans and its revelation of righteousness without the law

"Now we know that whatever things the law says, it speaks to those who are under the law, that every mouth may be closed, and all the world may be brought under the judgment of God.                                                    

Because by the works of the law, no flesh will be justified in his sight. For through the law comes the knowledge of sin

But now apart from the law, a righteousness of God has been revealed, being testified by the law and the prophets; But now apart from the law, a righteousness of God has been revealed, being testified by the law and the prophets; even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ to all and on all those who believe.                                                                                                                                                               For there is no distinction, even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ to all and on all those who believe.                                                                                                                                                        

 For there is no distinction, for all have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God;

Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus;  whom God set forth to be an atoning sacrifice, through faith, in his blood, to show his righteousness because of the passing over of the sins done before, in the forbearance of God; for the showing of his righteousness at this present time; that He might Himself be just, and the justifier of him who has faith in Jesus. for the showing of his righteousness at this present time; that he might himself be just, and the justifier of him who has faith in Jesus.

27 Where then is the boasting? It is excluded. By what manner of law? Of works? No, but by a law of faith "even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ ... " (Rom. 3 :21-22)' nor did he have the Hebrews' Epistle and its testimony to the nature of Old Testament sacrifice as being typical and a shadow of the good things to come. This of course is not to deny the necessity of faith on the part of the Israelite, but to emphasize the proper importance and place of divinely instituted sacrifice and Mosaic worship in its dispensation.

THE LAW:  A SHADOW OF THE SACRIFICE OF JESUS CHRIST

The New Testament teaching, especially the Epistle to the Hebrews, is very emphatic in its declarations that " ... the law having a shadow of the good things to come, not the very image of the things, can never with the same sacrifices year by year, which they offer continually, make perfect them that draw nigh." (Heb. 10:1) These were sacrifices, he continues, " ... which can never take away sins." (Heb. 10:11) For they" ... cannot, as touching the conscience, make the worshipper perfect," (Heb. 9:9) since the blood of goats and bulls availed only to " ... sanctify unto the cleanness of the flesh," (Heb. 9:13) but "how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal spirit offered himself without blemish unto God, cleanse your conscience from dead works ... (Heb. 9:14), "for it is impossible that the blood of bulls and goats should take away sins." (Heb. 10:4)

Here would appear to be two apparently opposite views of the efficacy of the Levitical sacrifices. But the reconciliation of the difficulty lies, not in a denial of either the Old or New Testament teachings, but in a harmonization of both. This is accomplished through a study of the two different aspects under which sacrifice IS regarded in the Mosaic economy and by the Hebrews' Epistle respectively. Reconciliation of the Problem                                                                                         From the worshiper's standpoint the Levitical sacrifices were, in a sense, efficacious in a two-fold way:                                                                                               (1) they healed the breach of covenant relationship which resulted from either ceremonial or moral transgression, and kept secure their civil and ecclesiastical privileges; and                                                                                                                                 (2) they procured also, when offered with unfeigned penitence and humble faith, actual forgiveness for the sinner in that it is clearly stated the sacrifice " ... shall make atonement for him as touching his sin that he hath sinned, and he shall be forgiven."                                                                                                                                                                                                             It is dishonoring, it seems, to God's word and promise, which is repeated over and over, to contend that the sins under the first covenant were only symbolically, but never really, forgiven.

This is to fail to comprehend the meaning and purpose of Old Testament sacrifice and to reduce it to vague and meaningless ritual. This does not really deal with the problem. It simply raises another one-how can we explain the divine promises of forgiveness in Leviticus? To be sure, the Levitical sacrifices were but shadows of the true, and most assuredly the blood of bulls and goats can never take away sins, but this is looking at the matter both from the New Testament's and from God's viewpoint.

 That is to say, it is one thing to view the matter from the Old Testament worshipper's viewpoint, who actually participated in the objective ritual of the animal sacrifice, and to whom there was not a word spoken as to these sacrifices being simply objective symbols of inward spiritual truths, for on the contrary, it is expressly stated "he shall be forgiven."

It is another matter, however, to look at the question from this side of the cross, in the light of full revelation, and too, to view it from the standpoint of God's intended purposes with regard to sacrifices.

THE WORD OF GOD--JESUS CHRIST

JOHN 1:1-4

King James Updated--------- Hebrew and Greek Original

In the beginning was the Word, (o. logos) and the Word (o. logos) was with God
jEn ajrch'/ h\n oJ lovgoß, kai; oJ lovgoß h\n pro;ß to;n qeovn, kai; qeo;ß h\n oJ lovgoß.
The same was in the beginning with God
ouJ'toß h\n ejn ajrch'/ pro;ß to;n qeovn.
All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
pavnta dij aujtou' ejgevneto, kai; cwri;ß aujtou' ejgevneto oujde; e&n. oJ; gevgonen
In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
ejn aujtw'/ zwh; h\n, kai; hJ zwh; h\n to; fw'ß tw'n ajnqrwvpwn:

ROBERTSON'S WORD PICTURES

Verse 1 In the beginning (en arch). Arch is definite, though anarthrous like our at home, in town, and the similar Hebrew be reshith in Genesis 1:1. But Westcott notes that here John carries our thoughts beyond the beginning of creation in time to eternity. There is no argument here to prove the existence of God any more than in Genesis. It is simply assumed.  Either God exists and is the Creator of the universe as scientists like Eddington and Jeans assume or matter is eternal or it has come out of nothing.  Was (hn). Three times in this sentence John uses this imperfect of eimi to be which conveys no idea of origin for God or for the Logos, simply continuous existence. Quite a different verb (egeneto, became) appears in verse Genesis 14 for the beginning of the Incarnation of the Logos.                                                                                                                                                                                                            See the distinction sharply drawn in Genesis 8:58 "before Abraham came (genesqai) I am" (eimi, timeless existence).  The Word (o logoß). Logoß is from legw, old word in Homer to lay by, to collect, to put words side by side, to speak, to express an opinion. Logoß is common for reason as well as speech. Heraclitus used it for the principle which controls the universe. The Stoics employed it for the soul of the world (anima mundi) and Marcus Aurelius used spermatikoß logoß for the generative principle in nature. The Hebrew memra was used in the Targums for the manifestation of God like the Angel of Jehovah and the Wisdom of God in Proverbs 8:23. Dr. J. Rendel Harris thinks that there was a lost wisdom book that combined phrases in Proverbs and in the Wisdom of Solomon which John used for his Prologue (The Origin of the Prologue to St. John, p. 43) which he has undertaken to reproduce. At any rate John's standpoint is that of the Old Testament and not that of the Stoics nor even of Philo who uses the term Logoß, but not John's conception of personal pre-existence. The term Logoß is applied to Christ only in John 1:1,14; Revelation 19:13; 1 John 1:1 "concerning the Word of life" (an incidental argument for identity of authorship). There is a possible personification of "the Word of God" in Hebrews 4:12. But the personal pre-existence of Christ is taught by Paul (2 Corinthians 8:9; Philippians 2:6; Colossians 1:17) and in Hebrews 1:2 and in John 17:5. This term suits John's purpose better than sopia (wisdom) and is his answer to the Gnostics who either denied the actual humanity of Christ (Docetic Gnostics) or who separated the aeon Christ from the man Jesus (Cerinthian Gnostics). The pre-existent Logos "became flesh" (sarx egeneto, verse John 14) and by this phrase John answered both heresies at once. With God (proß ton qeon). Though existing eternally with God the Logos was in perfect fellowship with God. Proß with the accusative presents a plane of equality and intimacy, face to face with each other. In 1 John 2:1 we have a like use of proß: "We have a Paraclete with the Father" (paraklhton ecomen proß ton patera). See proswpon proß proswpon (face to face, 1 Corinthians 13:12), a triple use of proß. There is a papyrus example of proß in this sense to gnwston thß proß allhlouß sunhqeiaß, "the knowledge of our intimacy with one another" (M.&M., Vocabulary) which answers the claim of Rendel Harris, Origin of Prologue, p. 8) that the use of proß here and in Mark 6:3 is a mere Aramaism. It is not a classic idiom, but this is Koin‚, not old Attic. In John 17:5 John has para soi the more common idiom. And the Word was God (kai qeoß hn o logoß). By exact and careful language John denied Sabellianism by not saying o qeoß hn o logoß. That would mean that all of God was expressed in o logoß and the terms would be interchangeable, each having the article. The subject is made plain by the article (o logoß) and the predicate without it (qeoß) just as in John 4:24 pneuma o qeoß can only mean "God is spirit," not "spirit is God." So in 1 John 4:16 o qeoß agaph estin can only mean "God is love," not "love is God" as a so-called Christian scientist would confusedly say. For the article with the predicate see Robertson, Grammar_, pp. 767f. So in John 1:14 o Logoß sarx egeneto, "the Word became flesh," not "the flesh became Word." Luther argues that here John disposes of Arianism also because the Logos was eternally God, fellowship of Father and Son, what Origen called the Eternal Generation of the Son (each necessary to the other). Thus in the Trinity we see personal fellowship on an equality.

Verse 2 The same (outoß). "This one," the Logos of verse John 1, repeated for clarity, characteristic of John's style. He links together into one phrase two of the ideas already stated separately, "in the beginning he was with God," "afterwards in time he came to be with man" (Marcus Dods). Thus John clearly states of the Logos Pre-existence before Incarnation, Personality, Deity.

Verse 3 All things (panta). The philosophical phrase was ta panta (the all things) as we have it in 1 Corinthians 8:6; Romans 11:36; Colossians 1:16. In verse 1:10 John uses o kosmoß (the orderly universe) for the whole. Were made (egeneto). Second aorist middle indicative of ginomai, the constative aorist covering the creative activity looked at as one event in contrast with the continuous existence of hn in verses 1,2. All things "came into being."  Creation is thus presented as a becoming (ginomai) in contrast with being (eimi). By him (di autou). By means of him as the intermediate agent in the work of creation. The Logos is John's explanation of the creation of the universe. The author of Hebrews (Hebrews 1:2) names God's Son as the one "through whom he made the ages." Paul pointedly asserts that "the all things were created in him" (Christ) and "the all things stand created through him and unto him" (Colossians 1:16). Hence it is not a peculiar doctrine that John here enunciates. In 1 Corinthians 8:6, Paul distinguishes between the Father as the primary source (ex ou) of the all things and the Son as the intermediate agent as here (di ou).                                                                                                                                   Without him (cwriß autou). Old adverbial preposition with the ablative as in Philippians 2:14, "apart from." John adds the negative statement for completion, another note of his style as in John 1:20; 1 John 1:5. Thus John excludes two heresies (Bernard) that matter is eternal and that angels or aeons had a share in creation. Not anything (oude en). "Not even one thing." Bernard thinks the entire Prologue is a hymn and divides it into strophes. That is by no means certain. It is doubtful also whether the relative clause "that hath been made" (o gegonen) is a part of this sentence or begins a new one as Westcott and Hort print it. The verb is second perfect active indicative of ginomai. Westcott observes that the ancient scholars before Chrysostom all began a new sentence with o gegonen. The early uncials had no punctuation.

Verse 4 In him was life (en autwi zwh hn). That which has come into being (verse 1 John 3) in the Logos was life. The power that creates and sustains life in the universe is the Logos. This is what Paul means by the perfect passive verb ektistai (stands created) in Colossians 1:16. This is also the claim of Jesus to Martha (John 11:25). This is the idea in Hebrews 1:3 "bearing (upholding) the all things by the word of his power." Once this language might have been termed unscientific, but not so now after the spiritual interpretation of the physical world by Eddington and Jeans. Usually in John zwh means spiritual life, but here the term is unlimited and includes all life; only it is not bioß (manner of life), but the very principle or essence of life. That is spiritual behind the physical and to this great scientists today agree. It is also personal intelligence and power. Some of the western documents have estin here instead of hn to bring out clearly the timelessness of this phrase of the work of the Logoß. And the life was the light of men (kai h zwh hn to pwß twn anqrwpwn). Here the article with both zwh and pwß makes them interchangeable. "The light was the life of men" is also true. That statement is curiously like the view of some physicists who find in electricity (both light and power) the nearest equivalent to life in its ultimate physical form. Later Jesus will call himself the light of the world (John 8:12). John is fond of these words life and light in Gospel, Epistles, Revelation. He here combines them to picture his conception of the Pre-incarnate Logos in his relation to the race. He was and is the Life of men (twn anqrwpon, generic use of the article) and the Light of men. John asserts this relation of the Logos to the race of men in particular before the Incarnation.

ROBERTSON'S WORD PICTURES

if the universe had a beginning and, as they say. in their own words, nothing existed before the beginning

Either absolute nothing created something --something as complex as the universe, or there really is a super-super Being, existing outside of creation, that is the creating power-- or God exists

       

          AT THIS POINT, we are stating beliefs. But we must do that in either case--that is believing the Bible or not believing the Bible, believing nothing created everything or not believing it.

          There might also be some who object to the idea that belief, faith, or trust is not in the realm of reality--that is real reality. To this I would say,  we do that all the time. In actual real life, it would be impossible to live in today's world, in fact, without exercising trust--in fact exercising more like a blind trust.

Obviously we trust in the proper functioning of our cars, when we drive a car, or, even more, flying in an airplane. How many have investigated and actually gathered factual information about the airplane that you are, in actual fact, risking your life by trusting in its properly functioning.

The Bible says, "faith is the substance of things hoped for. The evidence of things not seeing." Hebrews 11:1

          There is no article in front of the word, "faith". Which would mean, generally speaking, we act on the basis of expectant facts. And, in reality-- real life, that must be a common occurance.

IN THE STUDY OF SCRIPTURES--notably John's writings and the Synoptic Gospels.

JOHN 1:1-3, 14-18 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through him; and without him was not anything made that hath been made.      John 1:1-3 (ASV) 14 And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us (and we beheld his glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father), full of grace and truth.    John 1:14 (ASV)

JOHN'S WRITINGS--THE OTHER APOSTLES

Language in which the New Testaments is written. A library has grown up on the subject, and various views have been influentially contended for.

What is relevant at this point are the following facts: (a) There is no evidence that our canonical Gospel was ever seen and the Hebrew (Aramaic) tongue. The Gospel which Jerome said he had seen in and translated into Greek and Latin, was not Matthew's, but an apocryphal Nazarene Gospel. (b) Matthew's Gospel was known to the early Church only in Greek. (Matthew's Gospel as the most Hebrew-isms and identified as to the Jew. Certainly it would've been written in Hebrew if any of them were.) (c) It is certain that the Greek Gospel was an original, and not a translation from a Hebrew text. (d) all the early writers quote this Gospel, refer only to Matthew in Greek.

This subject is of more than merely academic interest, for it helps us to understand certain references in the record, such as the translation of Hebrew words, which would have been unnecessary in a Gospel written in Hebrew; One of John the apostle's habits was to explain Hebrew words: (Rabbi--which is to say, being interpreted, Master. John 1:38; "the Messiah--which is, being interpreted, Christ" John 1:41; "Cephas which is by interpretation, Peter"--John 1:42; "Messiah, who is called Christ" John 4:25; "which is called in Hebrew, Bethesda" John 5:2....  There was also the explanation of customs, which Palestinian Jews would not need. A Hebrew collection of Logia, and our Greek Gospel, serve to show that at the time of Christ to languages were spoken by Jews. Aramaic was the language of the common people, and Greek was a literary language, show that those who spoke Aramaic could read Greek. Both Christ and Paul spoke these languages. In converse with Pilate our Lord would speak Greek, but on the cross he spoke Aramaic. Paul, addressing Romans, spoke in Greek, but on receiving permission to address the Jews he spoke in Hebrew. It was quite natural therefore for Matthew to write an ole Tom which would best be understood by Jews everywhere  (Scroggie) The Septuagint Translation was used often by the Apostlesd--particularly Paul. It must be remembered that the translators were Jews, full of traditional thoughts of their own as to the meaning of Scriptures; and thus nothing short of a miracle could have prevented them from infusing into their version the thoughts which were current in their own minds. They could only translate passages as they themselves understood them. It would be however, too much to say that they translated with dishonest  intention; for it cannot be doubted that they wished to express their Scriptures Julie and Greek.... One difficulty which they had overcome was that of introducing theological ideas, which till then had only their proper terms in Hebrew, into a language of Gentiles, which till then they had terms for no religious notions except those of heathens. Hence the necessity of using many words and phrases in new and appropriated senses.     Introduction of Septuagint