THE CROSS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT
SIN AND SACRIFICE
The words and phrases often used for sin in the Old Testament likens it to failure to reach the mark! Sin is to break God's law, whether it is in those things that demand of us pure, wholehearted and correct worship, acknowledgement of His truth and. goodness, or moral uprightness in our dealings with others.
Circumstances in different ages dictated that different kinds of sin were singled out for special condemnation. Prophets often spoke out vigorously as they appeared in the daily life of the community, in the form of social irresponsibility on the part of the upper classes, or the silly laws of the community leaders, or the carelessness for others, especially for the weak and deprived. Or, at times, the violation of the systematic form of true worship in the temple, were just as forcibly condemned for all genuine prophets and priests knew that it was what went on in the house of God (or what did not go on there) that determined conduct in the homes, in the council chambers and administration, and on the city streets.
The people no matter who they were, high or low, whatever situation they might be in, were expected to look to God and to live according to His law and care for His honour, and to have the deepest concern for any break in the order of life appointed by Him caused through sin. When such a breach occurred it was more serious when sin was committed presumptuously and deliberately not only in violation, but also in defiance of God's known covenant will. However, sin often occurred as a careless act or a step into wrong behaviour perhaps due to their human frailty, and the laws could be broken almost by accident. Yet even this type of sin was serious, and the consequences were dreadful, and those who had offended, whether actively or unwittingly had to seek pardon and restoration provided through the sacrifices and services of the temple. However, the one who sins presumptuously should be "cut off from among his people" (Num.15:30). Sin in its essence was to be regarded as a violation of the sacred order of life that had been given by God for his people.
By these sins His holiness was challenged His very person was insulted, and He had to turn away His face from them, the taint of sin and the hostility to himself until action had been taken to blot out the sin and forgiveness and repentance, so that the personal relationship could be renewed and friendship reopened between God and His people. Sin was a serious threat to God's sovereignty; it involved an alliance of the sinner with the forces of the devil, the evilness and corruption that threatens people and societies. These forces had to be averted by the people themselves because only by taking heed to the Lord their God according to His laws could they have that shelter that would keep them from destruction. In such situations brought between God and man, and thus between man and his environment, it was by the means of acts of atonement that these dreadful situations could be retrieved. By these acts the covenant between God and His people was preserved and God's holiness was given again to His people, and peace was established between God and those wayward people. It was only as the atoning acts were accepted that the FEARFUL FATE OF THE ANGER OF GOD could be averted and cancel out the guilt of sin. It must be stressed that the sacrifices were regarded as the means provided by God himself in His love for such amends to be made. It was God in His wonderful grace that purged sin and iniquity in this way and brought people near to Himself in His courts (Ps. 65:2-4). God does not demand a system of sacrifices to which He can reap benefit from, but a way in which they can maintain communion with Him by means of atonement. "The one who atones is God".
It is possible that in the life of Israel, there were those who in order to salve their uneasy consciences that they made many costly sacrifices on some pagan altars hoping to get right with God. These were ideas to be resisted, as Israel was able to understand more of God's grace. If they felt as they came to the altar that they needed to appease the anger of God, they were meant in the actual process of making their sacrifice to find as the prodigal son found, a welcoming love that embraced them and found a longing in the heart of God to restore them to what they were - or even better. God through the sacrificial system had opened up a way for Israel to have a continuous relationship with Himself "Jehovah" had put Himself within reach of Israel's gratitude, Israel was granted fellowship with him in the sacred meal. Above all Israel could be reached by His will and forgiveness.
Four of the sacrificial offerings mentioned in the book of Leviticus both the "peace offering" (3:1-17, 7:11-34) and the whole burnt offering (1:1-17, 6:8-13) together with cereal offerings, were to unite the worshippers with God in a shared meal, and to- renew the relationship between Him and His people.
The other two types of sacrifice, the "sin offering" and the "guilt offering" seem to apply more to the more serious breaches of the law. These last two types of sacrifice differed outwardly from each other in the way the blood of the animal was treated. Animal sacrifices could be offered as often as desired by individual supplicants. On special occasions and at the main festivals they were offered on behalf of the whole community. The major part of the ritual was very similar in all the offerings. The animal was brought to the altar, the offerer laid his hands upon the head, and the animal was slain, and the blood was treated in a prescribed way, sometimes the blood was smeared on the horns of the altar, and sometimes it was thrown against the altar, or was poured out at the base of the altar, and on special occasions it was sprinkled seven times before the mercy seat, and on the mercy seat and before the veil of the sanctuary It was an absolute law that the animal for the sacrifice should be unblemished. No doubt those who participated in such sacrifices would have realised that but for the death of such a victim, judgment was inevitable. They would have had to be blind not to have been impressed both in mind and conscience that "sin is not forgiveness a matter of course, but as a result of the offering of a pure and innocent life, an expiation for the guilt-laden life of the offerer!
When we seek to try and understand the meaning of these rites we enter the realm of conjecture. We find as we read the Old Testament that it gives us no explanation as to why the offerer should lay his hands on the head of his animal. Some scholars see in this rite simply the dedication of the offering. There are many who believe that the details of the Old Testament rites must contain forshadowings of the way in which Christ in himself and by His sacrifice bore our sins, see the rite as full of deeper significance; by laying his hand on the head of the animal with confession of sin the worshipper is identifying himself with the victim in an action that symbolises the transfer of sin to the offering.
What happens to the animal happens symbolically to himself - the death of his own death, accepted by him as the consequence of his sin. The one clue and explanation given in the Old Testament as to the significance of the blood and its use is in the text of Leviticus "For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it for you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls, for it is the blood that makes atonement by reason of the life (17:11). In the same passage it is emphasised that God has banned every other use of the blood by his people, God has reserved it exclusively for his own purposes. When the Israelite makes his offering and sees the blood, his thoughts are directed to the life that is now being poured out in death for his sake. Some scholars who might be expected to find the closest links between the thought of the Old Testament and find the New Testament has little justification in the text of the Old Testament for asserting that the sacrificed animal was regarded as vicariously bearing the punishment of the guilty offerer and as such in some sense satisfying God's justice! Such vicarious bearing of sin is certainly suggested in part of the ritual of the Day of Atonement (Lev.16). At this great annual feast two goats were presented to the priests and were set apart by means of drawn lots for quite opposite fates. One was destined to be sacrificed on the altar for the Lord. On the head of the other goat the priest laid his hand and confessed the sins of the people this animal was then driven out of the camp into the wilderness, signifying that the iniquities of the nation were now gone. We see here in this ceremony that the latter animal took the sins of the nation and became known as the scapegoat; nevertheless the guilt in this instance is not transferred to the one that was sacrificed. Most Old Testament scholars at this point do not attempt to give explanations, except to say that the sacramental act expiates, because God wants to use it as such. We have seen that the sacrificial ritual of the temple was designed to deal only with sins committed without deliberate intention, but those who felt that their sins put them beyond the help offered in the temple could still find comfort in the fact that God could provide atonement for the more serious sins, if the forgiveness was indeed based on God's good pleasure and signified His grace, then that there was hope that such grace would not be limited to the religious spheres of life.
Thus we find that within a catalogue of purely judicial matters that a man can "redeem his life!" even in the case of a fault deserving death by paying a money ransom (Ex.21:30) and on certain occasions local rulers were provided with means of expiating the guilt of the community when a serious crime was committed, and no one owned up, or was harbouring a suspect. Such a ritual of atonement involved the breaking of a heifer's neck in a valley with running water, then the heifer is beheaded and the rulers then wash their hands over the sacrifice. This was a ritual quite different from any in the temple, but it was God's way of removing the guilt of innocent blood" from among them (Deut. 21:1-9).
We turn now to the historical narratives, especially of the early life of Israel with God, we find other examples of sins being atoned for by rites quite different from those of the religious system. When Israel made and worshipped the golden calf, and when later they "yoked themselves with Baal of Peor" and played harlot with the daughters of Moab, these were undoubtedly occasions of high handed rebellion against the covenant by a significant majority of the community (Num. 25:1-13) Gods anger was roused and some fearful punishment was immediately given, but not such as by God's previous warning the seriousness of the sin deserved. In both places the plague was stayed and the sin was expiated. How this happened is instructive.
In the case of the golden calf, Moses was encouraged to pray at the same time as God forbade him to pray "Let me alone, that my wrath may burn hot" (Ex. 32:10). Moses pleaded with God to cool things down. God gently asks him to desist and at the same time assures him that his prayer is being most effective. So Moses continued on and on passionately interceding for mercy, and as he pleaded he felt the nations guilt so deeply that he offered his own exclusion from the book of life as a substitute for the dreadful fate that threatened Israel (Ex. 32:31-2) but God accepted Moses inspired intercession as expiation. In the case of Baal of Peor and the awful id3latry, Phinehas was inspired by the jealousy of God himself to a bloody and symbolic act of ritual, which "made atonement for the people," (Num. 25:10-12). During the reign of David two other noticable examples of the covering of sin took place. At the time of famine David was called on to make expiation because he heard from God that the blood guilt of Sauls treachery against the Gibeonites was still affecting the life of the kingdom (2 Sam. 21; 3ff). When the Gibeonites were asked, they called for the death of seven sons of Saul, when they were hanged the famine ceased. At another later time of plague David himself made intercession, for it was his fault that had brought on the trouble. He offered to take on the whole punishment upon himself and his father's house. (2 Sam.24; 16-17). The important point made at some stage in most narratives and emphasised in the extra ritual atoning acts, is that God shares and inspires the concern that the sin and it consequences should be wiped out It is the thought here that God's anger has to be propitiated. Yet God1s judgment on sin is always there in these acts of atonement, together with his forgiving love. In all these atoning acts of forgiveness God's "wrath" is expressed in the measure of suffering that comes with the act, but its expression is only partial and it is restricted at the crucial moment. Throughout the whole of the Old Testament it is shown to be a habit with God. His wrath is but for a moment" and compared with the eternity of His love. Yet he; being compassionate, forgave their iniquity, and did not destroy them; he restrained his anger often and did not stir up all his wrath, he remembered that they were but flesh. (Ps.78:38-39). The fact of such passages in the Old Testament affirmed that in divine wrath there is "not an attribute like righteousness, but rather transient affection". Another Old Testament scholar in a comment on Ps.30:6 writes "Since it is the wrath of God, we should take it very seriously, but just because it is the wrath of God it springs from a reality which is different from that from which the anger of man springs. It is not something that is ultimate and final. The purpose of God's anger is not to destroy but to educate". The educative exercise of God's wrath can be illustrated by the case of David's own sin with Bathsheba. The sin of David was "put away" by a simple prophetic word (so free and gracious is the forgiving love of the Lord). Yet in being forgiven David entered a long path of suffering in which partly because of his continuing folly, and partly because we are human beings should always become aware of something of the cost of our sin and forgiveness, like a greater one to come, he 'learned obedience" (Heb. 5:8). In David's case the chastening and suffering was laid on him Bfter the word of forgiveness came to him. To the generation addressed in Isaiah '40 the word of forgiveness came after years of bitter exile at the end of a period if suffering that the grace of God was called "double" for all her sins. (Is.40:2) It must be made clear that what matters most to God in all the offerings and acts of atonement is the sincere expression of repentance and concern on the part of the offerer or mediator, and this means the humble and contrite acceptance of whatever measure of due suffering God wills to allow to come upon the guilty.
That is why intercession, even of a mediator, is always accompanied by a deep sense of personal confession. If all this is lacking and the outward ritual becomes merely perfunctory, then the whole system of sacrifice can be so useless as to be called an abomination to the Lord (Is.1:11-15). On occasions acts of atonement were brought about by 'lay' people like Phinehas, but most often the task of expiation was undertaken by priests, prophets and kings whose chief role in the community was to act as mediator. This was a unique role and it has several aspects relevant to our understanding of the New Testament
The Priest. The priest's main duty was to act as a go-between for both God and man. He acted especially as a mediator in the offering of the sacrifice, which restored the personal relationship between God and the individual, and re-established the threatened covenant between God and his people. The priests received the gifts, made the offerings, and led the people in the required ritual. The phrase in the New Testament for this 'mediators of the old covenant' (Heb.9:15). The priests also were expected to be teachers. They ensured that the correct rituals were observed, and interpreted to the people what God was saying to them in the sacramental worship and the tradition behind the feast. They were to teach that the sacrifices were simply signs of true repentance and new obedience. Therefore we see the priests reading the law to the people and explaining it, and giving instruction from it. (Deut.31.9, Chron.17:7-9, Ezek.22:26). When they failed in their tasks as teachers God raised up the prophets to take over this aspect of their work. As well as being teachers the priests were expected to live an exemplary life in the community, fully observing the law they were to teach. They were expected to have a separation and holiness, which reflected that of God himself into whose presence they so often came. When they failed they were allowed to sink to the worst depths of depravity and came under relentless judgments. (1 Sam.1-4). The office of the priest came to belong to the tribe of Levi. They were regarded as a group elected by God for this purpose, and special provision was made by statute so that they could become a holy separate brotherhood that was required. It has been hailed as one of the miracles and mysteries of the Old Testament that the tribe whose forefather acted with disgraceful treachery in the affair of Dinah and Shechem, and earned his father1s curse upon his anger (Cen.34) should later be able to rehabilitate itself and prove its worth in an outstanding act of atoning zeal in the affair of the golden calf and presumably in other incidents at Meribah and Masash (Ex.32.26ff, Deut.33:6-10). The tribe of Levi came to be recognised by God himself as prepared to disown their brothers in order to keep the covenant. Their atoning zeal at times of crisis made if fitting that they should be chosen to minister God's expiating love within the temple. In the offering of the sacrifices the priests were regarded as both representing Israel, standing before God on behalf of the people (Deut.10:8) and making the offering while the rest remained in passive acknowledgement of what was being done in their name. In the same way as the firstborn was claimed by God as a representative for the whole family, so the Levites were regarded by God as representing the nation (Ex.13:2, 22:29, 30:20). They were to regard themselves as in solidarity not only with the congregation but also with the victims which were being offered on the altar of sacrifice, for it was an important part of the ritual that they ate the flesh of the sacrifice. As priests before God it was their duty to make intercession for those whose sacrifice they offered. It was a duty, like that of teaching, grossly neglected (Joel 2:17, Mal.2:7-8). It was this task that the prophets had to take over from them.
The Prophesy. The prophets seem to have acted as the continuing conscience of Israel, taking up the tasks in which the priests had failed. They brought to the mind of the nation the true meaning of the covenant, the law, the sacrifice and the temple itself. They lived under the leading of God, interpreting history by his inspiration, delivering for their times his word in his name (Num.24:3ff, Jer.23:1S, Amos 3:7-8). They preached with his authority, and were regarded as speaking with his voice (Hos. 12.10, Is.55:11).
They had to stand as the priests often failed to do, on God's side representing him and his truth against the rebellious people of the day, and many times bearing the antagonism that was directed against God himself. On many occasions they suffered when the word they preached clashed as it often did with the thinking and acting of the policies and opinions of the nation. They often found themselves alone, ostracised and completely misunderstood. They were even conspired against and persecuted. All this as von Rad says "made deep inroads into their personal lives and even imperilled their whole existence." Some of the implications of the prophetic ministry of suffering on the side of God can be seen from Ezekiel's own account. His task was to warn the people of the future misery they might incur if they want on disobeying God; of the coming siege, captivity and famine. Today we can be brought face to face with the stark horror of what famine and siege and war can bring by pictures in our new media. Ezekiel was to enact the meaning of his word in his life. He was to experience the reality of the doom he was proclaiming so intensely that as he preached he was to eat his bread with quaking and drink water with trembling and fearfulness. As he warned of siege and captivity he had to lie on his left side for a hundred and ninety days to "bear the sin" of North Israel, and then on his right side for a further forty days to bear the sins of Judah (Ezek.4:4-8). When warning of the coming famine he had to starve himself for a period corresponding to the length of the threatening ordeal, feeding only on famine rations weighed out carefully before the people and cooked on dung. Such "unclean bread" would be the kind eaten in a foreign land by people starved and in captivity (:9-17). On another occasion he was urged by God to "cry" and "howl" beating his thigh with remorse because the word he was to deliver to others was so piercing, it had to become to himself a sharp sword lacerating his heart (Ezek.21:12). We must try to gain some insight into what all this is supposed to mean. There was the physical strain of living at a high emotional pitch, without being allowed to relax. We can imagine the weariness, boredom and humiliation involved in the sign of lying on his side in Full public view for months on end, End the disgust and nausea caused by living in an unclean way on meagre food. We see this strange mad fellow; a local spectacle gaunt, emaciated and pathetic and we are reminded of those pictures of starving people from war-torn areas today. The actions, which Ezekiel was told to perform as he preached the word, were called signs; indeed the prophet himself was a sign. The signs were symbols of the coming judgments that he was preaching about. Through them the prophet was to feel "his solidarity with human misery". What makes the actions so significant for us in a study that moves of course towards the New Testament, is the word that accompanied the instructions to Ezekiel to lie on his side "I will lay the punishment of the house of Israel upon you (Ezek.4:4). This can be interpreted ·The coming disaster is casting its shadow before, and harnessing the prophet body and soul alike, with a hard yoke of suffering. It is to be remembered that God himself suffers agony along with his p3ople. Suffering came to many of the prophets not by prescription but by persecution. Some of them suffered inwardly. Jeremiah was a very sensitive prophet, and he seemed to share something of the sufferings of God himself in having to inflict punishment.
He felt very keenly the mockery and reproach that was brought upon him when he delivered the message. We can also see a sympathetic agony seizing Moses when he protested to God that he was going too far in judgment (Ex.22:11-20) as also Elijah in (1 Kings 17:20) however in Jeremiah, more sensitive and self-revealing than any of his predecessors, the burden seems more intensive, and it lies behind many of the complaints and protests to God that are scattered throughout his book (Chpt.11-20). Jeremiah's oneness with the people at times was so acute that as von Rad says, "the clash between Jehovah and his disobedient people took place within the prophet himself". In their mediatorial capacity the prophets are both on the side of God and on the side of the people. It is this fact that makes them above all the great intercessors of the Old Testament. It was accepted that it was the prophet's duty to pray for the nation. No doubt it is n reference to this that Ezekiel describes the true prophet as one who could "stand before God and in the breach" and thus defend the land from ruin (22:28ff, cf. l5:4-5). Intercession of the suffering prophet is linked up with the bearing the sins of the people (Js.55:12). These men are near to God. God hears their confession of the people's sin and yet their intercession usually sets before God those great motives in himself from which he acts - his confession, his covenant, his redemptive work already begun, his love for the nation that he has chosen.
The King. God eventually allowed Israel to have kings as well as prophets and priests. Then too represented the people before God, approaching him on their behalf and praying for them 2 Sam.24:17, 2 Chron.14:11). God also made a covenant with the king on behalf of the nation and sought through the king to bestow blessings as well as protection, justice and welfare on the whole nation (2 Sam.7:5-17, 23:5, Ps.72:1-12). The king represented God to the people. God himself was called King. The majesty and glory surrounding the earthly king were pointers to the majesty and glory of God himself, and to his heavenly court of justice (1 Kings 22:19, Ps.84:3, Is.6:59).