The one thing that you would hold back from God,
Is the one thing you must become willing to place upon the altar.
The One Thing You Hold Back
Scriptural Analysis- Leviticus 16:29-34
29 And this shall be a statute for ever unto you: that in the seventh month, on the tenth day of the month, ye shall afflict your souls, and do no work at all, whether it be one of your own country, or a stranger that sojourneth among you:
30 For on that day shall the priest make an atonement for you, to cleanse you, that ye may be clean from all your sins before the Lord.
31 It shall be a sabbath of rest unto you, and ye shall afflict your souls, by a statute for ever.
32 And the priest, whom he shall anoint, and whom he shall consecrate to minister in the priest’s office in his father’s stead, shall make the atonement, and shall put on the linen clothes, even the holy garments:
33 And he shall make an atonement for the holy sanctuary, and he shall make an atonement for the tabernacle of the congregation, and for the altar, and he shall make an atonement for the priests, and for all the people of the congregation.
34 And this shall be an everlasting statute unto you, to make an atonement for the children of Israel for all their sins once a year. And he did as the Lord commanded Moses.
We have been told the details of this special ritual and here in the final verses it is explained that this is to be yet another yearly holy day for the people. In later passages we will hear it named as the Day of Atonement. This day has more in common with the Feast of Unleavened Bread, than the Feasts of Firstfruits, and Ingathering. Like the former, it was to be a special sabbath, in which no one would do any work, only devote themselves to the observances of that holy day. It was also like the Feast of Unleavened Bread in that it was set upon a specific day and month of the year.
Thus, on the same day each year, the people would consider the special ritual of the priest, and how he was making atonement for them all. As we read in verse 33, it was atonement for the sanctuary, for the tabernacle, for the altar, for the priests, and for all the congregation. All that Israel was and all that they had made was sanctified as one conduit to the Lord. This explains why Aaron would sprinkle the blood upon even the mercy seat. It was also the work of the Israelites, a vessel in the fallen world, and as such it was necessary to periodically recommit it to the Lord.
Scriptural Analysis- Leviticus 16:23-24
23 And Aaron shall come into the tabernacle of the congregation, and shall put off the linen garments, which he put on when he went into the holy place, and shall leave them there:
24 And he shall wash his flesh with water in the holy place, and put on his garments, and come forth, and offer his burnt offering, and the burnt offering of the people, and make an atonement for himself, and for the people.
We had a great deal of detail for how the sin offerings were to be performed, but now just two verses describing how Aaron would then wash, change clothes, and perform the burnt offerings for both himself and the congregation, presumably just following the usual routine for that ritual.
This completes the tasks that the High Priest must perform on the Day of Atonement and provides us an excellent opportunity to look back at some of the more unique aspects in the earlier verses and what they likely represent.
The most unique part of the ritual was, of course, the selection of two goats, one to be chosen at random for the sacrifice, and one to be released as the scapegoat in the wild. This immediately brings to mind comparisons to Jesus and Barabbas, Jesus being the offering slain at the altar, Barabbas being the scapegoat set free into the wild. We are all of us that scapegoat, sinners set free because the Son of God was sacrificed instead. Even to the Ancient Israelite this symbolism applies: offerings were slain for their sins while they, themselves, were freed from condemnation.
So why, then, was the scapegoat released into the wild, and with the burden of Israel’s sins upon its head? For this we must recognize that simultaneous to the above-mentioned symbolism, the two goats also represent different aspects of the same ultimate sacrifice. Jesus is both the goat slain and the goat cast into exile. He was cast into exile when he left heaven to enter the mortal world and wear our sins on his head. He was slain for our sins upon the cross. To the Ancient Israelite, their sins were paid for by the slaughtered goat, and their evil predispositions carried away by the second goat so that they could live better.
These two goats can be seen as a symbol for the human condition. We are born as a wild goat astray in the fallen world, weighed down by our sin and shame, and it is our great mission in life to come back to the altar and let our old self be slain that we may be reborn as something new.
Here are three interpretations, I am sure that there are more. This is a very thought-provoking ritual, one that seems to be rich in meaning.
Scriptural Analysis- Leviticus 16:10, 20-22, 26
10 But the goat, on which the lot fell to be the scapegoat, shall be presented alive before the Lord, to make an atonement with him, and to let him go for a scapegoat into the wilderness.
20 And when he hath made an end of reconciling the holy place, and the tabernacle of the congregation, and the altar, he shall bring the live goat:
21 And Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live goat, and confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions in all their sins, putting them upon the head of the goat, and shall send him away by the hand of a fit man into the wilderness:
22 And the goat shall bear upon him all their iniquities unto a land not inhabited: and he shall let go the goat in the wilderness.
26 And he that let go the goat for the scapegoat shall wash his clothes, and bathe his flesh in water, and afterward come into the camp.
Today we learn about one of the most unique and interesting elements of the Old Testament sacrifice system, which is the scapegoat. In the last post we heard that on the Day of Atonement, two goats would be presented as potential sin offerings, but only one would be selected, at random, to fulfill that purpose. The other was the scapegoat, which we read today had all of the sins of Israel declared upon its head. Then it was led by the hand to the wilderness and there released.
Thus, the scapegoat had both a burden and a freedom not afforded to the other goat. The image of this goat is so intriguing that even today we use the term “scapegoat” to refer to someone assigned to take the blame for a group. As I said before, I am first detailing all of the ritual actions performed on the Day of Atonement, and only afterward will I delve into all of the symbolic meaning, but obviously this matter of the two goats is of prominent significance.
Scriptural Analysis- Leviticus 16:5, 7-9, 15-19, 25, 27-28
5 And he shall take of the congregation of the children of Israel two kids of the goats for a sin offering, and one ram for a burnt offering.
7 And he shall take the two goats, and present them before the Lord at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation.
8 And Aaron shall cast lots upon the two goats; one lot for the Lord, and the other lot for the scapegoat.
9 And Aaron shall bring the goat upon which the Lord’s lot fell, and offer him for a sin offering.
15 Then shall he kill the goat of the sin offering, that is for the people, and bring his blood within the veil, and do with that blood as he did with the blood of the bullock, and sprinkle it upon the mercy seat, and before the mercy seat:
16 And he shall make an atonement for the holy place, because of the uncleanness of the children of Israel, and because of their transgressions in all their sins: and so shall he do for the tabernacle of the congregation, that remaineth among them in the midst of their uncleanness.
17 And there shall be no man in the tabernacle of the congregation when he goeth in to make an atonement in the holy place, until he come out, and have made an atonement for himself, and for his household, and for all the congregation of Israel.
18 And he shall go out unto the altar that is before the Lord, and make an atonement for it; and shall take of the blood of the bullock, and of the blood of the goat, and put it upon the horns of the altar round about.
19 And he shall sprinkle of the blood upon it with his finger seven times, and cleanse it, and hallow it from the uncleanness of the children of Israel.
25 And the fat of the sin offering shall he burn upon the altar.
27 And the bullock for the sin offering, and the goat for the sin offering, whose blood was brought in to make atonement in the holy place, shall one carry forth without the camp; and they shall burn in the fire their skins, and their flesh, and their dung.
28 And he that burneth them shall wash his clothes, and bathe his flesh in water, and afterward he shall come into the camp.
Yesterday we heard how Aaron would give a sin offering for himself, and sprinkle its blood upon the mercy seat, making atonement for himself, and now we hear how he would then do the same for the congregration. However, there was a most interesting wrinkle to this particular sacrifice. Instead of bringing one goat for the sin offering, two were presented. One of them was to be slain and used for the sacrifice, the other was to be set free, though banished from the community. Which goat would serve in which function came down to a game of chance, “casting lots,” leaving the outcome in the hands of God.
For the goat that was selected to be the sacrifice, Aaron followed the same procedure for his personal sin offering, killing the goat and using its blood to sprinkle the mercy seat in the most holy place of the tabernacle. We can presume that he had to enter the holy place under the same cover of incense smoke that we heard of for his personal sin offering. After the blood of both sin offerings had been sprinkled around the mercy seat, then he would use more of their blood upon the sacrificial altar.
Then the fat of the sin offerings was burned upon the altar. It does not say that the kidneys were also burned, but likely they were, consistent with the usual procedure for sin offerings. Also consistent with the usual sin offering procedure was that the rest of the animals’ remains were carried out of the camp and burned.
Aaron had now atoned for the sins of himself and all the people, but what about that goat who was to be released into the wild? We will hear about that tomorrow.
Scriptural Analysis- Leviticus 16:3-4, 6, 11-14
3 Thus shall Aaron come into the holy place: with a young bullock for a sin offering, and a ram for a burnt offering.
4 He shall put on the holy linen coat, and he shall have the linen breeches upon his flesh, and shall be girded with a linen girdle, and with the linen mitre shall he be attired: these are holy garments; therefore shall he wash his flesh in water, and so put them on.
6 And Aaron shall offer his bullock of the sin offering, which is for himself, and make an atonement for himself, and for his house.
11 And Aaron shall bring the bullock of the sin offering, which is for himself, and shall make an atonement for himself, and for his house, and shall kill the bullock of the sin offering which is for himself:
12 And he shall take a censer full of burning coals of fire from off the altar before the Lord, and his hands full of sweet incense beaten small, and bring it within the veil:
13 And he shall put the incense upon the fire before the Lord, that the cloud of the incense may cover the mercy seat that is upon the testimony, that he die not:
14 And he shall take of the blood of the bullock, and sprinkle it with his finger upon the mercy seat eastward; and before the mercy seat shall he sprinkle of the blood with his finger seven times.
We here continue the ritual by which Aaron would enter into the most holy place of the tabernacle once every year. Personally, I find the layout of the chapter confusing, as there are two groups of sacrifices going on, Aaron making a sin and burnt offering for himself, and Aaron making a sin and burnt offering for the congregation. The verses weave back and forth between the two, and I have decided to instead reorganize the verses according to their subject. Thus, today I will cover all the verses specifically about Aaron’s sin offering, then over the next two days all of the verses about the congregation’s sin offering, and then the next day all the verses for both burnt offerings. Also, I will review the basic facts first, then consider the symbolic meanings more in depth at the end of the chapter. Hopefully I won’t just make things more confusing than they already were!
One thing that stands out immediately about this chapter is that it is describing a supremely sacred event, which required specialized ritual aspects seen nowhere else in God’s law, starting with the dual sacrifices, one set being for Aaron and the other for the congregation. Also unique is that Aaron is purifying himself in preparation for an annual visit with the Lord. Also, that a blanket atonement is being performed over the entire congregation for any sins that had been committed throughout the year. The purpose of this special event was to bring God, Aaron, and the people all into simultaneous alignment. It was the Day of Atonement.
And so, we first hear of Aaron’s sin offering, which starts off normally enough, but then in verse 14 it goes into specialized territory when Aaron uses the blood of the offering to sprinkle the mercy seat seven times. The mercy seat is, of course, the lid of the Ark of the Covenant, within the most holy place of the tabernacle. The place that was forbidden for anyone to enter except at this one time. We have heard of blood being sprinkled around the sacrificial altar for burnt and trespass offerings, and blood sprinkled on a person for the consecration offerings, but this is the first time we hear of an offering’s blood being used on the mercy seat.
But Aaron could not just enter into the most holy place. Verses 12-13 explain to us that in order to preserve his life in such a holy place, Aaron must first use coals from the altar of sacrifice to burn incense, enough to produce a cloud that would cover the mercy seat, creating a barrier between him and the direct dwelling place of the Lord. It does not explain this process entirely, but perhaps Aaron would hold the curtain open to let the incense cloud travel in first, and then proceed only when it was safe to do so.
Scriptural Analysis- Leviticus 16:1-2
1 And the Lord spake unto Moses after the death of the two sons of Aaron, when they offered before the Lord, and died;
2 And the Lord said unto Moses, Speak unto Aaron thy brother, that he come not at all times into the holy place within the veil before the mercy seat, which is upon the ark; that he die not: for I will appear in the cloud upon the mercy seat.
The opening of this chapter references back to the priestly disobedience of Aaron’s two sons, Nadab and Abihu, who were consumed in fire by the Lord for their sin. This memory is invoked to remind Aaron of the strictness of his calling, particularly in matters of “the holy place,” which is the inner chamber of the tabernacle where the Ark of the Covenant resides. Aaron is informed, on pain of death, that he must never come into that place outside of the very specific conditions that God will describe in the rest of this chapter. And none of the other priests could ever venture into that place. Only the High Priest, and only once a year, as we will soon read.
The reason is given in verse 2. The Lord, Himself, will dwell in a cloud upon the mercy seat, which is the lid of the Ark of the Covenant. His presence and His glory are wonderful and terrible, consuming like a flame any who are not prepared beforehand.
There is in these verses an example of the principle of leadership. With leadership responsibility there comes great obligation, great consequence for failure, and also great privilege. Aaron will officiate as the highest authority in bearing the sins of the people, he is given the instructions of how to do so under pain of death, and he will be the only one allowed into the very chambers of the Lord. Obligation, consequence, and privilege.
A Slight Change of Idea
A slight change of idea can be the difference between prevailing peace or rolling horrors upon the Earth.
Every great ideology, philosophy, pattern of government, and conception of reality began as a mere idea in the mind of a man. They are but small things, and a man can turn his mind from one idea to another with little consequence. He has but simple thought experiments, ideas of how things could be. And in the simulations of his mind, his ideas may all seem correct, innocent, and only geared to the good of mankind.
But as the idea grows, and leaves the mind, and takes hold of the masses, then it becomes argument, then creed, then party, then nation. And as it grows, so do the consequences, and so some ideas become the foundation for flourishing and joy, and some become the foundation for purge and war.
Fundamental Preconceptions
Fundamental preconceptions are sacred to us. They form the basis of everything that we know and believe. They tell us how to be right, and who else is wrong. We immediately know false statements when they contradict our preconceptions and immediately know true statements when they follow from our preconceptions. Our entire perspective of reality and righteousness is based on its alignment with our fundamental preconceptions.
Thus, when you attempt to break the fundamental preconceptions of another, you are attempting to do no less than crush their entire conception of reality. This is no mere disagreement; it is a great cosmic event with the greatest of stakes hanging in the balance. To what extent one is prepared to engage in that conversation varies wildly from person to person.
If you succeed in breaking the fundamental preconceptions of another, and they were not ready for it, you have done nothing less than dropped them into the pits of hell. There is now no sensibility to the world for them, no comforting reason, all that should be is not. If they are ready, and you are speaking the truth, then it can be the beginning of their ascent to heaven.
None of this is to say that people should be left in their deep delusions, but it does deserve proper respect for what we are doing when we try to rouse people out of them.
The Problem of Evil- Boundaries on God
Getting an Education)
I had long been aware that I felt different from many people, Christians included, in the fact that I did not struggle with the terrible suffering in this world combined with the belief in a powerful and loving God. Frankly, I was glad that I didn’t see a paradox in this and assumed that the paradox wasn’t even real. I assumed that people were distressed by this conundrum for purely emotional reasons, which would certainly be understandable, just not justifiable by logic or reason.
And, as I learned in my study of the matter, that assumption of mine is true for many individuals out there. Many don’t understand the very argument that they use, don’t recognize that it only applies in some contexts and not in others. There are also those who see that the Problem of Evil is only an argument against a very specific conception of God and reality, and I am very grateful to them for expanding my horizons so I could see what that conception was.
Yesterday I shared about faiths that bypass the argument entirely by not holding to the presuppositions that it depends on. Today I wanted to conclude by exploring some of the thoughts that came up when I imagined how it would be to live as one of those Christians to whom those presuppositions do still apply.
What Does All-Powerful Mean?)
At the root of everything, it comes down to just what we mean when we say that God is all-powerful and that He is sovereign over all. In most conversations, I find that even people who believe in the strongest conceptions of God’s power, still assume that to some degree He imposes restrictions upon Himself. They might say that God has the power to slam Jupiter into the Sun, causing a sudden burst of heat and energy that would consume the Earth and eradicate all life in an instant…but He doesn’t, because He is checked by His goodness and compassion. The fact that God does not do something, is not evidence that He cannot do something. It can merely be a sign that His nature bounds itself. God must wield all power, but not at the expense of being all-benevolent.
And then other attributes can be applied to that. Such as logic and truth. These are principles that exist on the same plane of existence as Him, and many Christians would argue are a part of Him, and as such He would operate according to their principles. Just as God would not show His power in a way that contradicts His benevolence, He would not show it in a way that contradicts His logic. If He did, He would be uncoupling His own parts and cease to be Himself.
Thus, could the suffering in this world be a logical necessity, even under the hands of an all-powerful and all-benevolent God?
Is God still all-powerful if that power is bounded by His benevolence and His logic? Is He still all-benevolent if that benevolence is bounded by His justice and His logic?
And if God does need to balance all of these criteria with one another, then perhaps there is space to say that a world of suffering, and a species of man who become heroic by overcoming great opposition, is a logical necessity. In our own lives we know that victory is only a virtue in the face of genuine possible defeat, and maybe that isn’t just an illusion of our reality, but an eternal principle, as true as the principles of mathematics. Perhaps life is the way that it is, because it was the only way that it could be.
This may not answer every concern found in the Problem of Evil, but I think it does open the door to deeper conversation.
In Conclusion)
In my last post I showed how certain faiths do not hold the same presuppositions that the Problem of Evil argument depends on, and which explains why I never found it to be a conundrum. Today I explored the experience of one who did assume those presuppositions, and what arguments could still allow for the existence of both suffering and God.
This brings me to the end of this study, and I have certainly learned a lot through the process. I now understand where the strength of the Problem of Evil argument resides, what presuppositions it depends on, and what my responses to it are, both with and without sharing those presuppositions. It has been helpful for me, and I hope it can be helpful for you, too.
Spiritual Wanderings 