James Bejon writes: Last week on the Theopolis podcast, Peter Leithart, Alastair Roberts, Jeff Meyers, and I worked our way through the first half of Hebrews 9. Below I want to highlight something which became clear(er) to me as we did so.
Preamble
The Levitical system was, in many ways, a system full of paradoxes. On one hand it reflected Israel’s closeness to the God whom they worshipped. Yahweh was quite literally in their midst, and their life as a nation revolved around him. Yet, at the same time, the Levitical system reflected Israel’s distance from God. Yahweh was separated off from the common people with a whole series of buffer zones in order to contain and maintain his holiness.
Against that backdrop, Hebrews 9 draws our attention to three rather curious features of the Levitical system.
Paradox 1: The Tent
The book of Exodus ends with a problem. The tent has been successfully erected and filled with God’s glory, but, unfortunately, no-one is now able to enter it. God’s holiness is too great for mortal man to approach (Exod. 40.35). Against that backdrop, the Levitical system is inaugurated. The Levitical system allows Israel access into God’s presence via their priestly representatives. Yet Israel’s access to God is highly restrictive. Only the priests can enter the outer tent, and only one priest can enter the Most Holy place, and that only once a year. Hence, while the Levitical system is a means of access into God’s presence, it is at the same time a barrier. As long as the outer tent is in place, the Writer says, the way into the Most Holy Place is not fully open (Heb. 9.8). The outer tent both opens up and closes up.
Paradox 2: The Day of Atonement
A similar paradox underlies the Day of Atonement. The Levitical system deals with only a small subset of man’s ‘sins’, and generally seeks to cleanse impurities rather than to take away sin. The main exception is the Day of Atonement. Aaron lays his hands on the head of a live goat, and confesses over it “all the iniquities of the people of Israel, and all their transgressions, i.e., all their sins” (Lev. 16.21).
These sins would have included things which were well beyond the capacity of the Levitical system to deal with. Leviticus prescribes no sacrifices for those who have murdered, committed idolatry, broken the Sabbath, or dishonoured their parents. Such sins could be dealt with on the Day of Atonement—or at least so it would seem. But the text of Hebrews 9 claims otherwise. On the Day of Atonement, the Writer says, the high priests goes into the Most Holy Place in order to offer sacrifices “for himself and for the unintentional sins of the people” (Heb. 9.7).
How are we supposed to square the book of Hebrews’ claim with the implication of the book of Leviticus? The answer requires us to consider the fine print of Leviticus 16. (If I recall correctly, it was (unsurprisingly) Alastair Roberts who pointed us towards this solution.)
The Day of Atonement’s ritual consists of three main steps, which involve a bull and two goats. First Aaron offers the bull as a purification sacrifice in order to make atonement for himself (and his house), and brings its blood inside the Most Holy Place (Lev. 16.6, 11); then Aaron does the same with one of the goats in order to make atonement for the people (16.9, 15); and, finally, Aaron confesses all Israel’s iniquity and transgression over the other goat and sends it away to a remote place (16.21).
The writer to the Hebrews’ point concerns what is accomplished in each of these steps. The two sacrifices, the Writer claims, have a highly restricted scope. They deal only with “unintentional sin” (hence the priest does not ‘make confession’ over these sacrifices). What deals with all Israel’s iniquity and transgression is the exiled goat, which is sent away in Step Three.
Consequently, at the heart of the Levitical system is an unusual paradox. The most powerful and extensive of all the Levitical sacrifices—the act of atonement par excellence—is not in fact a sacrifice at all, and is only tangentially connected with the Holy Place. Blood, we’re told, is central to atonement (Lev. 17.11), and yet the blood shed on the Day of Atonement does not cover Israel’s most grievous iniquities and transgressions. It merely covers their unintentional sins.
Something thus seems deeply unsatisfactory about the Levitical system. Sin is merely sent away (in the hope it won’t return) rather than dealt with in the presence of the One who has the power to impute it to or expunge it from Israel’s account.
Paradox 3: The Golden Altar
The third paradox involves the golden altar. The golden altar belongs to the Most Holy Place (Heb. 9.4). Like the ark, it is made of acacia wood and overlaid with pure gold (Exod. 30). The text says the Holy Place ‘has’ the golden altar (χρυσοῦν ἔχουσα θυμιατήριον). That needn’t mean the altar was inside the Holy Place. The verb ἔχω could simply mean ‘belongs to’, as it does in the phrase ‘things which belong to salvation’ (ἐχόμενα σωτηρίας), Heb. 6.9.
The text of I Kings 6 thus tells us the altar “belongs to the inner sanctuary” (I Kgs. 6.22), and the text of Leviticus 16.12–13 even seems to talk about a fire which burns “before the LORD”, which it does after Aaron has entered the Holy Place.
Why, then, isn’t the altar situated within the Most Holy Place?
The answer is because, if it was, the Levitical system couldn’t function. The high priest has to bring incense from the altar into the Most Holy Place so he can cover the mercy seat with clouds (or he’ll die).
Like the live goat’s role in the Day of Atonement, then, the layout of the tabernacle is paradoxical. The altar which should be in Yahweh’s presence is instead situated in the outer tent (to preserve the priests’ lives). And so the sacrifices which are intended to reconcile man and God are offered outside of God’s presence.
Conclusion
The writer to the Hebrews thus draws our attention to three somewhat paradoxical features of the Levitical system, which he does so we can better understand its fulfilment in Christ and more fully appreciate the wonder of what we have as Christians.
Unlike the priests who served at the golden altar, Jesus did not offer a sacrifice outside of God’s presence. He is the presence of God, and he died in God’s presence at the end of a life lived in full surrender to his Father.
Unlike the scapegoat, Jesus did not merely ‘bear our sins away’ to a remote place. He became sin, bore it down into the grave with him, where it was destroyed, and rose for our justification.
And, unlike Israel’s high priest, Jesus does not merely ‘represent’ us in God’s presence; he brings us directly into it. As his flesh was torn, the curtain of the Holy Place was torn in two, and a new way into God’s presence was opened up.
What was separated in the old order thus pointed beyond it, and has now been brought together in Christ in the context of a new and better covenant.
Let us, therefore, draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water. And let us hold fast the confession of our hope without equivocation, for he who promised is faithful (Heb 10.22).
Previously published on James Bejon’s substack here.
James Bejon is a researcher at Tyndale House—an international evangelical research community based in Cambridge (UK), focused on biblical languages, biblical manuscripts, and the ancient world.
Buy me a Coffee
That is a really good exposition of the Levitical system which is much clearer to me now.
Many thanks.
Excellent points. Thank you.
Really helpful
James, really helpful, thanks.
In your substack do you compare Ezekiel’s temple system to Solomon’s temple system?
Welcome James {Bejon}
I wonder if this discussion occurred to the two disciples
traveling to Emmaus when Jesus “began from Moses” …
LK.24:27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.
Cleopas was the only one named of the two could it be possible that he was the writer of Hebrews, if not Paul?
What does this tell us about reverence towards God? knowing as we do the goodness and severity of God and the terror of the Lord
2 Cor 5:11.
James, the Theopolis website looks terrific and well
worth the subscription price, I am sure.
For those unable to run to that price
Ray Stedman has a brilliant exposition of Leviticus
“The Way to Wholeness” @ .
raystedman.org/old-testament/leviticus
Shalom.
Thanks Ian for posting this. And to James.
The ultimate paradox Jesus is fully man and fully God -without which there is no reality of the New covenant, the presence of God, in the ascension of the Son and asking Father to protect our send the Holy Spirit at Pentecost: yes, Jesus is fully man and fully God.
Do give a listen on catch up to 4 seminars at the Keswick Convention 9:30 am by Sinclair b Ferguson, this week, Mond. Tues. Thurs. Frid. all on the Holy Spirit, ranging across OT and New including Festival of Booths and the longing of Moses in Numbers 11:29 which was only fulfilled in Jesus (caveat Ferguson briefly goes into the meaning of prophecy in the New covenant).
The paradox of the goodness and severity of God
was evident from the beginning, after the stated judgement
God provides a covering for their shame
In the case of Cain God gave fair warning as He always does,
Ignored judgement ensued.
Surly this must me a call and a warning to the Church today?
EZK.33:3 If when he seeth the sword come upon the land, he blow the trumpet, and warn the people;
33:4 Then whosoever heareth the sound of the trumpet, and taketh not warning; if the sword come, and take him away, his blood shall be upon his own head.
33:5 He heard the sound of the trumpet, and took not warning; his blood shall be upon him. But he that taketh warning shall deliver his soul
33:6 But if the watchman sees the sword come, and blow not the trumpet, and the people be not warned; if the sword come, and take any person from among them, he is taken away in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at the watchman’s hand.
COL.1:27 – 28
The paradoxes are awesome.
Shalom.
If the Passover Lamb/Goat was an atoning sacrifice for the sins of Israel (together with the other animals that were sacrificed, Num 28:16-23), why was there also this second ritual of atonement by means of a lamb/goat?
There were other provisions whereby deliberate and (Lev 4-5) unintentional sin might be atoned for otherwise than on the 10th day of the 7th month. Why was the Day of Atonement also necessary?
After the Pentateuch, we read of Josiah celebrating the Passover, and also Josiah. In the gospels there are numerous references to the Passover being celebrated. Also once in Acts. Why are there no mentions of the Day of Atonement being enacted either in the Old Testament or the New? Not one.
If Israel’s sins were atoned for by the shedding of the first goat’s blood, what was the significance of the second goat, driven out into the wilderness? Was he not redundant? And if the animal bore the sins and iniquities of Israel but remained alive, did he not somewhat contradict the message that without the shedding of blood there was no forgiveness of sins?
The Holy Spirit descended on Jesus and remained. From that point on the two witnesses worked together. On the cross Jesus gave up his Spirit, He died and the Spirit , the scapegoat, was driven into desolation.
That’s how I see it.
The Revelation is the story of redemption from the Spirit’s pov.
They are the Two Witnesses.
God is The Great City split into three.
The two goats were counted as one goat.
There is more from two books from Messianic Jews I have but not to hand at this this time.
Two goats were one sacrifice, representing different aspects. Sins were laid on the azazel goat (scapegoat) symbolically carrying away the sins of the people.
As far as the east is from the west, so far has He carried our sins from us. (Psalm 103:12)
Thanks Geoff, Jesus and the Spirit were one sacrifice separated on the cross.
Perhaps I should have addressed the questions specifically to James Bejon for enlightenment.
🙂
The Passover lamb or kid was not an offering for sin. We can tell this because the ordinary people ate of its meat. That was not true of sin offerings, where the priests would eat that which was not burned up – nor a burnt offering, of course.
Another interesting point in this area is that in Leviticus 5 there are regulations for sin offerings for various offensives. What should be brought depends upon what the offender can afford: a female lamb or goat; or two turtle-doves ot two pigeons; or for the least wealthy a tenth of an ephah of flour: Lev 5:11-13:
“If, however, they cannot afford two doves or two young pigeons, they are to bring as an offering for their sin a tenth of an ephah of the finest flour for a sin offering. They must not put olive oil or incense on it, because it is a sin offering. They are to bring it to the priest, who shall take a handful of it as a memorial portion and burn it on the altar on top of the food offerings presented to the Lord. It is a sin offering. In this way the priest will make atonement for them for any of these sins they have committed, and they will be forgiven. The rest of the offering will belong to the priest, as in the case of the grain offering.”
In this last case, atonement is made (kip.pur) and forgiveness obtained (sal.lach) without the shedding of blood.
The other interesting thing I found when looking at this passage a while back is that the Hebrew word translated “sin offering” above (chat.tat) also means “sin”. The LXX translates it into harmartia, the word the NT uses for “sin”, but can it also be used for “sin offering”?
I would just Google The day of atonement both historicaly
and for current Jewish praxis.
To understand the nature of paradox I would recommend
G K Chesterton, a notable master of the paradox.
I would recommend “Chesterton and the Power of Paradox.”
@https://theimaginativeconservative.org/2015/01/chesterton-power-paradox.html for the casual reader or AI for a broader treatment of his many commentators.
I guarantee you will learn understanding with a smile on your face.
Shalom.
Another name for Yom Kippur, is ‘Face to Face’.
That too is a scriptural paradox except as provided for by God.
Is it? Where?
Exodus 33:20-23
My recollection also is that the High Priest has a rope tied to his ankle, so that he could be hauled out in the event of his death (due to unacceptable sacrifices and cleansing) in the Holy of holies, within the veil.
Is it? A paradox? And /or where is it known as Face to face?
I have two books by Messianic Jews, neither of which are to hand: one is the 7 Feasts of the Messiah, from which face to face is mentioned, the other, is by a prof? from Fuller, The Fall Feasts of Israel, by Dr Mitch and Zhava Glaser
Isn’t the term ‘unintentional sin’ a contradiction in terms? Unless one takes a particularly malicious view of Jonathan, when he ate some honey while ignorant of Saul’s pronouncement). Sin stems from a moral deficiency.
I always took ‘unintentional sin’ to mean something that the perpetrator had actually repented of – and which was somehow attributed to the ‘no longer I’ of Romans 7:14-25; i.e. unintentional, because it was not something intended by the ‘inner being’.
Certainly, with no repentance on the part of the perpetrator, all the sacrifices mean absolutely nothing.
But I don’t understand the phrase ‘unintentional sin’ – and it isn’t clear to me that the definition in the article is satisfactory either. Any ideas of what this means?
F F Bruce translates it as”errors” and in his footnote on the word (tablet doesn’t have Gk text) “sins if ignorance “…. “At Qumran sins of inadvertence incurred penance, but deliberate sins excommunication, ”
Isn’t it also that we sometimes get right/wrong decisions wrong, not out of rebellion but of mistaken thinking? Or think differently as the Holy Spirit continues his work.
Luther said something about “sinning boldy”. I took it to mean that sometimes a decision needed to be made when the best direction wasn’t clear… but something needed to be done. A best faith-guess that might turn out to be wrong…. but was an inadvertent error…
Hello Ian, I’ve kind of thought of that – and basically don’t agree that this can be the meaning – unless (of course) we assume that the correct course of action is somehow imprinted on our hearts and minds – and the error is due to letting our own ego blind us to the truth (so that, sanctimoniously, we invent – and convince ourselves of – excellent reasons why our course of action is actually ‘good’). Such errors aren’t really genuine errors and are manifestation of sin.
But I don’t believe that God would classify genuine error as sin – since that would seriously diminish God. It would render the whole concept of ‘sin’ pretty much meaningless and make God look petty (does my son sin when he makes errors in his long division?), so I don’t think ‘unintentional’ can refer to that.
And adage at law is, ‘ignorance of the law is no excuse’. Out of the whole people would all have known all the law?
Geoff – I’d have thought that the moral principles governing the law (which is what God is really interested in) were written on the hearts and minds of everybody.
So if you are guilty of some inadvertent faux pas, the law of the land may (quite rightly) require you to pay a fine (because – as you say – ignorance is really no excuse in the eyes of the law), but I don’t see how the word ‘sin’ applies unless there is clear a moral deficiency – i.e. there is something written on your heart and mind telling you what to do – and somehow you succeed in overruling this.