Day Of Atonement

[Augustine3]

In what way did this sacrifice offered by the high priest atone for sins?

 

[Crumpy]

I was just reading about this, and it’s in Exodus in the chapters numbered in the 20’s, I think, or maybe low 30’s.

Blood was considered sacred, holy. God’s plan was for the altar of the Tabernacle to be established and for animal sacrifices to be offered day and night, and at special times. Once a year, the High Priest was to perform the rituals specified in Exodus, to atone for his own sins and for the sins of the people. The sense always is that the animal is sacrificed instead of a person him/herself being slain to atone for their own sins.

It was God’s plan to do this, before the prophecies would be fulfilled in Jesus Christ. These sacrifices teach us something about why Christ died and why the shedding of his blood is a covental atonement for our sins.

both the sinai covenant and the new covenant in Jesus’ blood were generally familiar because they were in the form of a suzerain-vassal covenant – a covenant between parties who were unequal in status. The characteristic of the covenant is that the subordinate parties have to fulfill their end of the covenant deal – we, to obey God’s commands for living our lives.

As I recall, His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI has an explanation of this in his second volume of Jesus of Nazareth – and how Jesus’ death is a once-for-all-time fulfillment of the requirement for the atonement for sins. Jesus is the “lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world.”

the modern Jewish observance of the Day of atonement is, for the Jews, the holiest day of the year. Leading up to it, after the Jewish civil new year celebration of Rosh Hoshana, is a ten-day period of self-examination and preparation for the feast. No food or drink is taken on Yom Kippur, if medical conditions permit. This follows their own advice to “afflict the body” as part of their annual repentence for sins. They define it that the essential element of atonement is repentence – turning away from sin, not just for a day.

In their theology, which is very sincere and devotional, they recognize that repentence can take place any time, any place, any day. But, YK is “the” day to repent, if they have not taken care of it in the previous year.

They consider it an offense against God IN ITSELF to ignore this opportunity to repent. there is a lot to learn about repentence from the Jews.

 

[Barbkw]

In what way did this sacrifice offered by the high priest atone for sins?

It atoned for sin because that was God’s instruction to the Israelites for their sin (pagan worship).

Dr. Tim Gray has a series reairing on EWTN on Exodus. He talked about the Atonement and I’ll paraphase his lesson.

In Egypt, they worshipped various animals, calves and sheep were amoung the many. It was sacriledge in Egypt to dishonor calves and sheep and particularly within religious practice.

On the first Passover, at the time of the last plague, when pharaoh refused to let the Israelites worship away from the city, God’s instruction was to kill and bleed the lambs and then to paint the blood on their doorsills.

The nine plagues each attacked an Egyptian deity. The tenth plague revisits pharaoh sin against God’s people - the killing of their children to depopulate their culture.

The blood of the lambs, on the doorsills, was the last Israelite mark of defiance against pharaoh. Pharaoh would wake in the morning to find his firstborn son dead, to find the Israelites had escaped, and would then find that the Israelites had dishonored his religion by killing all these sacred sheep.

The sacrifice of animals for atonement, was a symbol to the Israelites of where they had come (paganism) and where they had dishonored Him (worshipping the golden calf).

 

[Augustine3]

The Day of Atonement was obviously imperfect otherwise Christ wouldn’t have come.

What I meant was what effect did this “atonement for sins” have?

God bless,

 

[Barbkw]

A rather corporate removal of sin. The high priest was a symbol for the whole of Israel and the Day of Atonement was the yearly renewal of the Covenant that God had with them.

But, also individual in a way. People brought their sin offering to the priests, the priests took the animal and killed it, offering it to God.

 

[Augustine3]

A rather corporate removal of sin.

I don’t understand what you mean by corporate removal of sin?

Brother in Christ,

 

[Crumpy]

First, correction to previous post. the Day of Atonement is described in Leviticus 16.

Second,

a deal is a deal, and God said that atoned for sin. Why would anybody doubt this?

Yes, Christ came to atone by his death, ONCE FOR ALL, but there was still the day of atonement before that time – which point to a future, a future which was Jesus Christ (Messiah).

 

[Augustine3]

I’m thinking the Day of Atonement brought the people back in favour with God to enable the people when they die to be counted among God’s friends and be released from their spiritual prison once Jesus liberated them to heaven.

Does anybody agree/disagree?

Brother in Christ,

 

[Barbkw]

I don’t understand what you mean by corporate removal of sin?

Brother in Christ,

Corporate as in the High Priest embodied the Israelites as a group. He was present to annually renew the Covenant with God on the Day of Atonement.

 

[Barbkw]

I’m thinking the Day of Atonement brought the people back in favour with God to enable the people when they die to be counted among God’s friends and be released from their spiritual prison once Jesus liberated them to heaven.

Does anybody agree/disagree?

Brother in Christ,

I’d agree.

 

[TimothyH]

I had read, I think it was in “Jesus and the Jewish Roots of the Eucharist” by Brant Pitre, that in laying hands on the animal, the sin was transferred to the animal which was then slaughtered.

***The elders of the community shall lay their hands on the bull’s head *before the LORD. When the bull has been slaughtered before the LORD… (Leviticus 4:13)

The above was for when the high priest sins and therefor made the entire people guilty.

***The individual *shall bring it to the entrance of the tent of meeting to find favor with the LORD, and shall lay a hand on the head of the burnt offering, so that it may be acceptablef to make atonementg for the one who offers it. The bull shall then be slaughtered before the LORD, (Leviticus 1:3-5)

The above passage was for when an individual sinned. In both cases, and in the other cases laid out in Leviticus, Dueteronomy and so forth, the persson bearing guilt layed hands on the animal’s head and transferred their own sin to the animal.

Its about the covenant. It’s always about the covenant for the Jews. Israel was God’s covenant people. Covenants create family bonds. In establishing a coveant with the Israelites, God was adopting the nation of Israel as his “Chosen son.” And remember that all covenants come with a blessings and a curse. All covenants with God come with with the reward of life for faithfulness and punishment of death for unfaithfullness. There were sins which did not break the covenant and sins which did break the covenant, similar to our own idea of venial and mortal sins. Simply put, breaking God’s covenant requried death. The exhortantion to faithfullness under the covenant so that Israel would have life, and the warning that breaking the covenant meant death, was one of Moses’ last words in what was essentially his fairwell speech in the last few chapters of Dueteronomy.

I call heaven and earth today to witness against you:m I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse. Choose life, then, that you and your descendants may live… (Deuteronomy 30:19-20)

In transferring the sin of the guilty to the animal and then sacrificing the animal, the demands of the convenant were satisfied. Transferring sin to an animal and then sacrificing the animal was a way for God to show mercy to his chosen people who themselves should have been the ones to die to satisfy the demands of the covenant.

That’s why Jesus was the perfect sacrifice. God became man and took our sins upon himself to satisfy the demands of the covenant and then sacrificed himself. God the Son took our sins upon himself and and then God the Son offered himself to God the Father.

-Tim-

 

[TimothyH]

Note that I don’t want to start an argument about substitutionary atonement. That is not my intent and I’m not saying that substitutionary atonement is correct or incorrect. My answer was in the context of old Testament sacrifice asked in the original post and the mention of Christ’s work on the Cross was extremely high level and simlified.

-Tim-

 

[Crumpy]

Note that I don’t want to start an argument about substitutionary atonement. That is not my intent and I’m not saying that substitutionary atonement is correct or incorrect. My answer was in the context of old Testament sacrifice asked in the original post and the mention of Christ’s work on the Cross was extremely high level and simlified.

-Tim-

Seriously, I don’t know who would be offended by the idea of substitionary atonement. Are we Catholics supposed to be offended by this? I, too, seem to sense there is some controversy, but I don’t know what the basis of it is.

Abraham was going to sacrifice his son Isaac as instructed by God, but at the last minute an angel stopped him and he sacrificed a ram that was caught in some nearby bushes. so, there was a substitutionary sacrifice right there. the “binding of Isaac” was a testing of Abraham’s faith, in the first place, but the sacrifice was considered appropriate, at the moment. Animal sacrifice became the norm in the cult of the Temple.

Human sacrifice was said to be ruled out, because of this Abraham incident. But, Christians have to add “the rest of the story” to show why God did that and how God both made and accepted only one human sacrifice, the son of God, our Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[TimothyH]

Seriously, I don’t know who would be offended by the idea of substitionary atonement. Are we Catholics supposed to be offended by this? I, too, seem to sense there is some controversy, but I don’t know what the basis of it is…

Exactly my point and my position. I don’t know much about the doctrine and therefor do not know what the issues are around any controversy which exists.

I just didn’t want to start a fued in the family nor go off topic. That’s all.

Now back to our regularly scheduled program.

-Tim-

 

[Augustine3]

In Leviticus chapter 16 we read one calf was sacrificed for atonement and the another was use as a scapegoat. My personal thoughts about this is one calf was used to atone for sins and the other was used to transmit the punishment due to for sin to the goat.

Does anybody agree/disagree, have further thoughts about this?

God bless,

 

[Augustine3]

In Leviticus chapter 16 we read one calf was sacrificed for atonement and the another was use as a scapegoat. My personal thoughts about this is one calf was used to atone for sins and the other was used to transmit the punishment due to for sin to the goat.

Does anybody agree/disagree, have further thoughts about this?

God bless,

Does anyone have thoughts on this? I’m quite happy to be corrected…

 

[onemangang]

In Leviticus chapter 16 we read one calf was sacrificed for atonement and the another was use as a scapegoat. My personal thoughts about this is one calf was used to atone for sins and the other was used to transmit the punishment due to for sin to the goat.

Does anybody agree/disagree, have further thoughts about this?

God bless,

Here are my thoughts anyways.

They Sound like a prefiguring of Christ where the one calf is presented before the Father as a sacrificial offering, while the other one has taken the sin of the people out of the Holy place and has cast out into the wilderness (lake of fire)

I think that as God does not desire sacrifices but contrite hearts, the sacrifice of the calves were not actual transactions of course, but a prefigured expression of Christ passion.

In Leviticus we have a Goat that was offered on a sacred feast day to expiate sin. A big day for the covenantal people to call to mind their sin and intentions, and renew the covenantal vows as God’s chosen people.

As far as the calves making amends for the people? I say they did not, but I believe God, in His mercy and grace accepted their sacrifice as satisfactory, through the future merits of Christ, by knowing their hearts.

I view Leviticus 16 more as a prefiguring to the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world out of His love and Mercy. An offering up of His passion before the Father as the slain Lamb, not in some actual transaction of exchange where God removed the sin of the people and placed it on the calf.

As for the scapegoat. As the unblemished goat left, it ran into the wilderness, never to be seen again by man, but consumed by beast. Kind of like being cast into the lake of fire

Like a prefiguring of Christ who out of mercy and love took sin upon Himself, conquering sin and death. Christ, who appeared to us in the flesh as the unblemished Lamb of God, removed our sin as far as the east is from the west. He left our sight, but gave us His Spirit, so that we may be assured that He would come again at the end of the ages, to do away with sin in the world Himself. A New Heaven and New Earth in A New Jerusalem where there is no more sin and death, it will finally be cast into the lake of fire (wilderness) for all eternity, as the calf before Him in Leviticus 16 represents.

To use your same line. Does anybody agree/disagree, have further thoughts about this?
Let’s continue the conversation, I would like to know more personally.

 

[Augustine3]

I wonder from the Jewish perspective the purpose of the scapegoat?

God bless,

 

[TimothyH]

Paul states in his letter to the Hebrews that the blood and ashes of calves and goats did not take away sin.

Nor was it to offer himself repeatedly, as the high priest enters the Holy Place yearly with blood not his own; for then he would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the age to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. (Hebrews 9:25-26)

Paul argues that the fact that the atonment for sin was repeated was an indication of its ineffectiveness. He argures further that Jesus’ death “Once for all”, because it is not repeated, is a clear indication of its acceptance by God and effectiveness at removal of sin.

For since the law has but a shadow of the good things to come instead of the true form of these realities, it can never, by the same sacrifices which are continually offered year after year, make perfect those who draw near. Otherwise, would they not have ceased to be offered? If the worshipers had once been cleansed, they would no longer have any consciousness of sin. But in these sacrifices there is a reminder of sin year after year. For it is impossible that the blood of bulls and goats should take away sins. (Hebrews 10:1-4)

Pretty straight foward.

It is important however, not to loose sight of the fact that Paul is writing to Hebrews, and is using arguments specific to the Jewish people, arguments that mean something specific to Jews who lived under the mosaic law with its animal sacrifice.

So I guess the question becomes, 1) to what extent was God’s command through moses that animials be sacrifice effective or not effective, that is to say, merely a preparation for the perfect sacrifice of Christ and, 2) to what extent is Paul using the system of sacrificing animals as a teaching tool and not a literal statement that animal sacrifice, blood offerings and such things were ineffective.

I’m inclined to think that in giving Israel the system of animal sacrifice, God was not only preparing Israel to recognize the perfect sacrifice of himself when it happened. but that he was repairing damage done by 400 years of living in Egypt, eating Egyptian food, living in Egyptian culture and so forth.

It is an interesting topic.

-Tim-

 

[fred_conty]

This big feast was celebrated to rid the people as a whole nation of their social and national sins.

The sacrifices for sins of each person was performed thru out the year by individual sacrifices.

At this time, the hight priest put the sins of the whole nation on the goat and drove it out
of the city into a place outside the city called Gehenna, fire dump. It was a symbol of the
people’s re-efforts to follow their covenant with God thru obedience and to start over.
It was thought of as ridding themselves of sins as a society,and was a gesture of their change of heart and good intentions.

Of course we now know that Jesus was the goat that our sins were laid upon. And all of this in the old is a prefigurement of the new.

Just a thought about how much we owe to Him.