My
previously posted sermon (Feb. 10, 2026) on the above topic raised some good
questions that were directed to me personally. It is likely that others
had the same type of questions. This post consists of the questions and
my responses. I say "responses" rather than "the
answers" because the latter sounds too definitive. I am a finite
person with limited understanding, studying the Bible as well as I can.
These are my responses. As abbreviated as they are, they are still quite
lengthy, but I hope that they are helpful.
Q
#1:
I really appreciate the distinction between covenant language and atonement
language. God's grace again is the driving force. But I don't
really understand the transition to the blood sacrifice after genuine
repentance. Comments?
Response: Here is an
analogy. God is beyond this world and our comprehension (God is
super-natural). In a sense, then, we can only speak about God
metaphorically, using the language of our world, the natural. Religious
ritual is a richer, more dramatic, more complex way about communicating the
nature of God and relationship with God. Example: ancient temples and
sites divided places into more and less sacred space, something which has
carried over the architecture of many churches. The closer one came to a
sacred object (altar, inner chamber, image, etc.), the more one was encroaching
on the dangerous sacred space of the god and had to be "cleansed,"
sanctified, and prepared to do so -- often as a priest.
Most of the religious rituals of ancient
Israel were picked up from the cultures around them, but the Israelites
de-mythologized them, stripping them of their polytheism and literal beliefs in
magic meant to encourage or manipulate the gods. The adapted Israelite rituals
become dramatized, symbolic acts rather than acts of coercive magic.
In Israel, the Temple symbolized God's
dwelling place. Israelites knew God did not literally live there.
Moreover, since sin has a real consequence in terms of impeding our
relationship with God, sins were dramatically represented as polluting areas of
the Temple, such that people would be alienated from God, and God would
eventually "leave" (Ezekiel's messages). Note that the emphasis
was on sin polluting God's place, not the sinner. The penetrating effect
of sin varied: inadvertent sins of the individual did not penetrate into the more
sacred areas/parts of the Temple as deeply as deliberate sins of the individual
and community. While there are many different offerings and sacrifices,
the ones dealing with sin required a ritual that symbolically cleansed the
place/object of pollution such as the outer altar, the holy chamber, or the ark
of the covenant (Day of Atonement) in the holiest chamber. In these
rituals, blood is the main symbol. The polluting effect of sin is
uncleanness, chaos, and death. However,
blood, particularly that of a “pure” animal without blemish, was a tangible,
manipulable symbol of life that is more potent than death. Note, too,
that the death of the animal is not focal point; an unblemished animal provided
the blood necessary for the cleansing atonement. That "life"
sprinkled or poured or wiped on a sin-polluted altar/object of God, symbolized
it being cleansed and then reconsecrated, with the result that there was no longer
an impediment in one's relationship with God, atonement had occurred.
My point was about how confession
(repentance) is what results in God's graceful forgiveness. However, to
represent that restored relationship, the sin offering had to be offered and
the blood applied to remove symbolically,
not magically, the pollution and to return the state of things to normal --
atonement.
The NT authors talk about Jesus
bearing/lifting sins just as the Old Testament does about God/Yahweh
lifting/bearing sins as a metaphorical expression for forgiveness -- one of
many metaphors. I cannot imagine that a trained rabbi like Paul, when
using the sacrificial language of the Temple believed in pagan magic of sins
being put onto a scapegoat or person who then "pays the price" to
fool or appease the gods
Q
#2: NT: God has made possible a new
covenant in which I am not only forgiven of sin but the way to him has been
forever made open through the cleansing blood of the Lamb. But doesn't,
in this case, the cleansing come before the confession, repentance, and
forgiveness? A new relationship to God has been offered to those who
entrust their lives to him. And that new relationship is really new life,
a life like the original human life was meant to be and a life that even now we
know will go on forever. Jesus' death is more like the passover lamb shed
for the covering and freeing of the Israelites in Egypt, but somehow this all
fits together.
Response: Great insight, question, and
observations. I cannot give a proper reply without giving it the depth it
deserves, but superficially I would answer your question about cleansing being
first with a qualified "no" that is somewhat covered by your own
following comments about a new life.
As an introductory note, your example
about the Passover Lamb, referred to in the Gospels at the Last Supper, is not
a sin-cleansing ritual, but is an example of “somehow this all fits together.” There are two allusions in those NT texts. First, the Passover event was part of a pre-Mosaic, covenantal act of God, along with the plagues, that revealed to the
Hebrew slaves in Egypt God’s sovereign nature and God’s commitment to the Abrahamic
covenant by delivering them from Pharaoh.
Blood as symbolic of life (mentioned below) protected them from the Angel
of Death. Celebrating the Passover
recalled that deliverance. Secondly, Jesus
refers to his blood as initiating a new covenant (Mark 14:24) such as in the ritual
one finds in Gen 15:7-21. Neither allusion
is about cleansing from sin. However,
the “new covenant” will be viewed by the first Christians as including Gentiles.
To put things into a clearer perspective,
we modern Christians need to back up a step from our typical Gentile point of
view. Paul thinks about Jesus as the Messiah for the Jews -- those who
accept Jesus as Christ are/become the true Israel. To explain PART of the
work of Christ, Paul uses atonement language proper, such as Jesus being the
Mercy Seat of the Ark of the Covenant (Rom 3:25, the physical
"intermediary" between God and the Israelites, often poorly
translated metaphorically as "sacrifice" or "propitiation;"
but see YLT or NET) and, mixing metaphors, as Jesus being the sin-offering (Rom
8:3; 2Cor 5:21, with the latter sometimes poorly rendered as
"sin"). A Jew, of course, would see sacrificial-atonement
language as first calling for confession/repentance, a point made in my sermon.
However, two further co-considerations
complicate the matter. First, Paul sees the total work of Christ
(expressed by "faith/faithfulness of Christ") to have brought about,
as you note, a new age and the ultimate expression of the "faith/faithfulness
of God" and God’s righteousness (Romans 3). (This is a similar line
of thought to the Gospels' presentation of Jesus as inaugurating the Kingdom of
God.) For Paul, to be "in Christ" (participatory theology)
means that a person is no longer under the reign of sin and death that has
ruled since the time of Adam. The one who "believes into
Christ" belongs to the reign of the Spirit and life (see Romans
5-8). In this reign, a person is no longer under the guidance of the
Law/Torah including sacrificial ritual and the role of the Temple symbolism.
(Think of the participatory theology in the Book/Letter of Hebrews.) The full work of Christ -- atonement in the technical
sense AND much more -- has brought the believer/entruster into a new life and
way of living.
Second, the co-consideration is that the
full work of Christ takes us back prior to Moses and the Law to fulfill the
promises to Abraham of being a blessing to the nations/Gentiles. It is
important to Paul, regarding the inclusion of Gentiles, to explain to Jewish
Christians that God receives people as "righteous" (in right
relationship) simply by faith (entrusting oneself to God), citing Hab 2:4 (Rom
1:16-17) and alluding to Abraham and Gen 15:6 (see his discussion in Romans 4
and Gal 3:6-14). So, again we see that God offers a covenant relationship
to Gentiles, just as with Abraham, prior to any "cleansing."
The grace of God is always primary. However, the notion now of "cleansing"
is that it has been taken care of once for all for those in Christ who
repent. It appears to me that the author of 1 John is thinking the same
way when he states, "But if we confess our sins, he is faithful and
righteous, forgiving us our sins AND cleansing us from all
unrighteousness" (1 Jn 1:9 NET, caps is my addition).
