We will begin this second part by sharing two quotes related to sins by error and deliberate sins, recorded in the book “The Temple” by the Jewish scholar Alfred Edersheim, published in 1874. On page 91 of the mentioned book, Edersheim wrote the following: “THE SYMBOLISM OF THE SIN OFFERING. This is the most important of all sacrifices. It made atonement for the person of the offender, while the guilt offering only made atonement for a specific offense… Both sacrifices were applied only for sins of ignorance, in contrast to those done presumptuously… for the latter, the law did not provide atonement.” On page 53, Edersheim writes the following: “For willful, arrogant, conscious profanation, whether it be related to the temple or to God, the law does not seem to have provided any atonement or offering. This is alluded to in the Epistle to the Hebrews in the well-known passage, often misunderstood: ‘For if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful expectation of judgment, and fiery indignation which will devour the adversaries’ (Hebrews 10:26-27).”
Considering that the Israelites -as well as us- sinned willfully and daily, the law did not allow them to offer atoning sacrifices for their deliberate sins; but if they repented, they were reached by the forgiveness offered by the morning and evening lambs presented by the priest, representing the Lord and His atoning sacrifice for our sins, which we receive undeservedly by GRACE.
After reviewing the sacrifices the Israelites offered for their sins by error, and the different procedures implemented in each case, registered in Leviticus 4, in this publication we will review what is recorded in the Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary related to the mentioned chapter. In volume I, pages 741-744, the following is stated: “When bringing a sin offering to the sanctuary, the person literally presented the sin that this offering represented and for which atonement had to be made… BY ERROR. Inadvertently, without bad intention, inadvertently, carelessly, without thinking… the sinfulness of sin does not necessarily or exclusively depend on what is done… according to this, there is a certain gradation in the punishments imposed for sins committed by those in different levels. In this chapter, four classes of transgressions are considered… 3. THE ANOINTED PRIEST… had to offer a bull for his sin… 6. SPRINKLED WITH THAT BLOOD… when the anointed priest sinned, the blood was carried inside the tabernacle… the priest dipped his finger in the blood and sprinkled it seven times in front of the veil… he also put some of the blood on the horns of the incense altar… the blood that was not used was poured at the base of the burnt offering altar… furthermore, this SPRINKLING was done ONLY when the ANOINTED PRIEST or the ENTIRE CONGREGATION SINNED. We have no record of how often the high priest sinned – by error – and had to present a bull as an offering, but we assume that this did not happen frequently… 13. THE ENTIRE CONGREGATION… Rarely would the entire nation sin by error… under such circumstances, the whole congregation had to present the same offering required of the high priest when he sinned… 17. THE SAME BLOOD. The ministration of the blood was the same as in the case of the priest sinned (verse 7).” At this point, it is necessary to make a clarification: in the commentary on verse 6, related to the nation’s sin by error, the Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary mentions the following: “The only concrete record of such an incident – that is, a sin by error – is the case of the golden calf.” The previous statement may lead to distorting and confusing what Leviticus 4 categorically qualifies as sin by error or without bad intention, from what is the sin of rebellion, as was the case of the golden calf. An evidence that the golden calf incident was not a sin by error, but a deliberate sin, is the fact that this event led to the wrath of God and Moses, as a result of which 3,000 worshippers of the golden calf died that day.
Returning to the sin by error of a leader, on page 745 of the same volume, the verse 22 is commented as follows: “WHEN A CHIEF SINNETH. The chief refers to the head of the tribe, or the head of a division of a tribe… 25. THE BLOOD. The ministration of the blood of the male goat is different from that of the bull. In this case, the priest DID NOT CARRY THE BLOOD INTO THE SANCTUARY – Holy place -, but collected it in a vessel and carried it to the burnt offering altar. There he applies the blood to the horns of the altar with his finger… 27. A PERSON OF THE PEOPLE. The procedure was the same as in the case of the leader – the blood did not go into the Holy place-, except that the person had to present a female and not a male.” The above information in the Bible Commentary confirms what is recorded in Leviticus 4; that the blood of the atoning victims of the common individuals or a leader was never taken into the holy place, much less sprinkled on the veil. It also reaffirms that the sins by error of the anointed priest or the entire congregation – not the deliberate ones that were many -, were extremely rare, if not nonexistent, which did not lead to the regular contamination of the veil with the atoning blood of the victims for sins by error.
This undermines the belief that, at the end of the year, the veil was extremely contaminated by the sins of the people of Israel. What is true, is that at the end of the year the most contaminated place in the sanctuary was the burnt offering altar, where the blood of all the atoning victims for the sins of the Jewish nation was poured at its base. One last observation is that in Appendix 9 of the book “Patriarchs and Prophets,” trying to support what is recorded on page 368, it mentions the following: “When an atoning sacrifice was offered for a priest or for the entire congregation, the blood was taken into the holy place and poured before the curtain and put on the horns of the golden altar… However, if the sacrifice was for a prince or for a member of the people, the blood was not taken into the holy place, but the flesh was eaten by the priest… it shall be eaten in a holy place, in the court of the tabernacle of the testimony (Leviticus 6:26).” The last part of the statement in Appendix 9 may aim to support our belief that an atoning and intercessory ministry was conducted in the Holy place for individuals who sinned daily. This statement presents two drawbacks: A- That the priest never ate the flesh of the atoning victim in the Holy place as we might mistakenly deduce from the text; rather, it was eaten in the COURT OF THE TABERNACLE OF THE TESTIMONY, as the previously cited verse records. B- That in the Holy place, activities related to worship and thanksgiving to God were carried out, such as the incense that was burned daily on the golden altar, and the showbread that was changed weekly in that place.
Considering all the information above, it is evident that our belief that the atoning and intercessory ministry of the Lord Jesus would take place in two stages at different times: one in the Holy place, and the other in the Most Holy place; which finds its counterpart in an atoning ministry in the Holy place after His ascension, and the other from the year 1844 in the Most Holy place, is contrary to what is revealed in Leviticus 4, and confirmed in the Adventist Bible Commentary. Blessings.”
“
Comments