A) BEFORE WE ENTER THE SANCTUARY.

B) THE THREE SINS.

C) BEFORE WE CONTINUE ON.

D) THE BEARING OF SINS.

E) THE ALTER OF INCENSE.

F) ONE MORE SIN OFFERING.

G) THE MEAL OFFERING.

 

 

A) BEFORE WE ENTER THE SANCTUARY

 

 

Before we enter into the Sanctuary, let’s take a look at the sin offerings.  “Sin” and “sin offering” are just different translations of the same Hebrew word “chattah.”  A “sin offering” was so closely connected with “sin” that only one Hebrew word is used to denote both.  An overwhelming thought is that “sin offerings” sufficed only for “sins” done through “ignorance,” Leviticus 4:2 & 13 & 27; Numbers 15:24 & 27.  Thus, “sin offerings” only concerned “sins” of errors or mistakes; of which the sinner was unaware at the time but later became known.

 

When Israel sinned deliberately, as in worshipping the golden calf, it was called “presumptuous,” Numbers 15:30, as in willful sin, and a “trespass offering,” Leviticus 5:6 & 15 & 16 & 18 & 19; etcetera, was required.  All these sins are the ones which are eventually transferred into the Most Holy Place to be cleansed on the Day of Atonement.

 

 

B) THE THREE SINS

 

 

So, let’s run through that again in a different vein.  There are basically three kinds of sin depicted in the Old Testament:

 

1) Inadvertent or Unintentional sin;

 

2) Deliberate or Intentional sin; and

 

3) Rebellious sin.

 

The “purification offering,” prescribed in Leviticus 4:1-5 & 13, applied to cases of unintentional sin, as well as some cases of deliberate sin (see Lev. 5:1).  While an offering was available for these first two categories, none is mentioned for rebellious sin; which is the most heinous kind.  Rebellious sin was done “in the face” of God, and the rebel deserved nothing less than to be ‘cut off” (see Num. 15:29-31; specifically verse 30).  This is the New Testaments sin “against the Holy Ghost,” Matthew 12:31.  However, it seems that even in these cases, such as with Manasseh, God offers forgiveness (see 2Ch. 33:12-13) if it be possible to break away from Satan’s grasp.

 

Here is an interesting statement:  “(16) And Moses diligently sought the goat of the sin offering, and, behold, it was burnt:  and he was angry with Eleazar and Ithamar, the sons of Aaron which were left alive, saying, (17) Wherefore have ye not eaten the sin offering in the Holy Place, seeing it is most holy, and God hath given it you to bear the iniquity of the congregation, to make atonement for them before the LORD? (18) Behold, the blood of it was not brought in within the Holy Place:  ye should indeed have eaten it in the Holy Place, as I Commanded.”  Leviticus 10:16-18.

 

IF YOU GET NOTHING ELSE FROM THIS STUDY, PLEASE UNDERSTAND THIS PARAGRAPH.  We need to notice that the reason for the eating of the flesh was so that the priest would then be considered “to bear the iniquity of the congregation.”  This statement has a direct bearing upon the question of the possibility for the transfer of sin from one individual to another, which is foundational to Christianity.  And that is, that Christ does become our sin Bearer (Isa. 53:6 & 11-12).  Now the purpose of the Sanctuary service can be seen.  Its whole purpose was to set the sinner free through the transfer of sin; and as such, that sin will eventually be eradicated.  Thanks to the death of Jesus, symbolized by these sacrifices, our sin has been taken away from us, placed on Him, and transferred to the Heavenly Sanctuary.  This is central to the plan of salvation.

 

 

C) BEFORE WE CONTINUE ON

 

 

So let’s understand something else before we go on.  If the sinner was a commoner or a leader, the blood was applied on the Altar of Burnt Offering (Lev. 4:25 & 30); which basically is everyone except:  If the High Priest (and always, the entire congregation) was the sinner, the blood was applied to the inner Altar, the Altar of Incense (Lev. 4:7 & 18), in the Holy Place.

 

There can be no doubt that there is a transfer of sin -- in the one case in type, in the other in reality.  When the High Priest ministered the blood and ate the flesh, he not only took the sin upon himself, but also, he identified himself so completely with the sinner that the sins he took upon himself became his sins, and as such he became responsible for them (Lev. 10:17).  Now we can see our Lord in Matthew 26:26-28 (see also Mark 14:22-24 & 1Co. 11:24-26):  “(26) And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is My body. (27) And He took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; (28) For this is My blood of the New Testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.”

 

 

D) THE BEARING OF SINS

 

 

Now we must consider that since the High Priest (Christ) bears these sins, they must be transferred one more time (from Christ to Satan).  “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.”  Leviticus 16:21.  The live goat mentioned here, represents Satan.  While the soon to be sacrificed goat well represents Christ’s acceptance of our sins, taking them upon Himself, and His death in our place for those transferred sins.

 

Concerning the blood used in the “sin offering:”  “And the priest shall take of the blood thereof with his finger, and put it upon the horns of the Altar of Burnt Offering, and shall pour out all the blood thereof at the bottom of the altar.”  Leviticus 4:30.  Of this ceremony Jeremiah states:  “The sin of Judah is written with a pen of iron, and with the point of a diamond:  it is graven upon the table of their heart, and upon the horns of your altars.”  Jeremiah 17:1.  The priest literally marks the horns with blood, recording the sins with his own finger, constituting a record as definite as though it were graven with the point of a diamond.  However, ultimately the lifeblood demanded is NOT the blood of a sinful life; but of a perfect life.

 

Only the life of Christ can now be substituted for the sinner to pay for the penalty of sin and thus maintain the dignity of God’s Holy Law.  It is aa if God’s Law holds the blood, which is the life of the sinner, until the Day of Atonement, when redemption is accomplished for those who promise to be obedient to the Law.  It must be noted here that the blood of a bullock and that of the goat accomplished two different things.  The bullock’s blood was for the atonement of Aaron and his house, while the blood of a goat, was for the atonement of the people and the Sanctuary (Lev. 16:11 & 15-16).

 

In a side note, according to Numbers 10:10:  “Also in the day of your gladness, and in your solemn days, and in the beginnings of your months, ye shall blow with the trumpets over your burnt offerings, and over the sacrifices of your peace offerings; that they may be to you for a memorial before your God:  I Am the Lord your God.”  Anytime God wants us to “remember” something, it is as if He is telling us it is “Holy” and “Commanded.”  See Specifically the first word of Exodus 20:8.

 

 

E) THE ALTER OF INCENSE

 

 

Notice also that the Altar of Incense was to be cleansed “once” a year (Exo. 30:10).  Consequently, we learn that not only the Holy and the Most Holy Places had to be cleansed, but also the Altar of Burnt Offering and the Mercy Seat(Lev. 16:18-19).  The blood of bulls, goats, rams, lambs, and pigeons were not efficacious enough to cleanse these Altars from sin.  But the True Lamb of God had the atoning value (on the Day of Atonement) that is needed to cleanse Them; and not Them only, but also the Sanctuary from sin, and also the world “from sin,” Matthew 1:21.  The reason is because of Christ’s obedient and sinless life.  Leviticus 17:11 puts it this way:  “For the life of the flesh is in the blood:  and I have given it to you upon the Altar to make an atonement for your souls:  for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.”  Therefore, it is the character of the life lived that makes It of value.

 

On the Day of Atonement, the perfect symbol of that life is found in the Lord’s goat (Lev. 16:18-19).  Notice, that It, as a representation of Christ, had no sins confessed upon It, for Its life was sinless.  The scapegoat, representing Satan, now bears those sins which Christ once bore (Isa. 53:10; 2Co. 5:21).  Thus, two types are manifested.  In the firstinstance, the Sacrifice was made to bear sin, was made sin, and as a sinner, must die.  In the second instance, a Sinless One, also Innocent, living a Sinless life, was given in holy consecration (died) for us.

 

All year these Altars and the Sanctuary had been sprinkled with blood that was considered sinful, thus defiling them.  Only the spotless blood of the Lamb of God, through the services conducted upon the Day of Atonement, could dispose of all these sinful blood offerings.  Soon, we must learn to “walk even as He walked,” First John 2:6, and quit crucifying “the Son of God afresh,” Hebrews 6:6.  As a result, we will be conquering sin through the power of His ever-redeeming blood.  I teach from the Book of Revelation, “repent, overcome repenting, overcome overcoming, the you can worship the True God, and not the false one (beast).”

 

There is a statement that is made about the scapegoat, and in explaining it I also hope to clarify the scapegoat’s role.  The statement is that the scapegoat “shall be presented alive before the Lord, to make an atonement,” Leviticus 16:10.  In taking the view that the scapegoat, “Azazel” by name, is a type for Satan, critics exclaim, “How can it represent Satan since it is not possible for him to ‘make an atonement’.”  The oxymoron is that there is no “atonement” for willful sin.

 

The main reason is that Satan is primarily responsible for all of the sins of men and angels.  The principle of joint responsibility comes in here.  And this principle is concretely stated clearly by my favorite Bible commentator when stating, “The punishment of the sinner will be measured by the extent to which he has influenced others in impenitence.”  YI, May 9, 1901.  “Of all the sins that God will punish, none are more grievous in His sight than those that encourage others to do evil.”  PP:323.  And lastly, Satan must bear “the guilt of all the sins which he has caused God’s people to commit.”  GC:485.  Thus, the “atonement” is accomplished it that, when all the sins are transferred, “atonement,” or better, a “cleansing” has been accomplished for those articles of the Sanctuary that were made sin.  Transferred from there to Satan.

 

The punishment is not expiatory; nor is it substitutionary; neither is it atoning, except in the sense that a criminal atones for his sins by dying.  Not with atonement unto salvation, but punitive atonement unto death.  Thus, the sins of Israel are placed upon the head of the scapegoat and it is lead out “into the wilderness,” Leviticus 16:10 & 22, which is symbolic of the millennium (Rev. 20:2-7).  “And as the scapegoat was sent away into a land not inhabited, so Satan will be banished to the desolate earth, an uninhabited and dreary wilderness.”  GC:658.  See also GC:485-486.

 

“Since Satan is the originator of sin, the direct instigator of all the sins that caused the death of the Son of God, justice demands that Satan shall suffer the final punishment.  Christ’s work for the redemption of men and the purification of the universe from sin will be closed by the removal of sin from the Heavenly Sanctuary and the placing of these sins upon Satan, who will bear the final penalty.  So in the typical service, the yearly round of ministration closed with the purification of the Sanctuary, and the confessing of the sins on the head of the scapegoat.”  PP:358.

 

While blood is mentioned as the purification for sin, water in some cases served in a similar purpose along with the blood.  The Laver is one, of course, and the water used in the ceremony of the red heifer (see Numbers, Chapter 5), was called “bitter water.”  Of Christ it is written, “This is He that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ:  not by water only, but by water and blood.”  First John 5:6.  “But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced His side, and forthwith came there out blood and water.”  John 19:34.

 

 

F) ONE MORE SIN OFFERING

 

 

There is however, one more “sin offering” that we need to take note of, and that is the one done without blood (Lev. 5:11-13).  If the sinner were unable to bring the least of offerings, even a turtledove or young pigeon, he would bring the tenth part of an ephah of fine flour.  Here we are face to face with a remarkable fact.  Ordinarily blood was called for in a “sin offering.”  Attention can now be called to Hebrews 9:22:  “And almost all things are, by the Law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.”

 

The adverb “almost,” is not explained except in Leviticus 5:11-13, where the rule that there is no remission of sins without the shedding of blood (Heb. 9:22) holds true except in the types there noted.  A similar situation confronts us in reference to the “red heifer,” Numbers 19:9, or “sin offering,” the blood of Numbers 19:4 not applying to the individual person, because it was not carried into the Sanctuary; it was not sprinkled before the veil; it was not put upon the horns of the Altar of Incense or the Altar of Burnt Offering; nor was it poured out at the foot of the Altar of Burnt Offering; neither did it come in contact with the Sanctuary.  It is well a representation that there is no sin so hideous that Christ’s blood cannot cover, nor any person so corrupt that He cannot reach.

 

This service should especially be studied in RH, January 9, 1883 paragraph 5 & 4T:121-122.  Here is a short excerpt:  “The sacrificial heifer was conducted without the camp and slain in the most imposing manner.  Thus Christ suffered without the gates of Jerusalem, for Calvary was outside the city walls.  This was to show that Christ did not die for the Hebrews alone, but for all mankind.”

 

Two applications are possible, of which the latter is more impressive.  The first would be that the offering parties would be too poor to afford a blood offering.  That Christ has a special place in His heart for the poor can easily be Biblically argued.  By contrast, the second application identifies to such persons as have had no direct or definite knowledge of the Savoir, and yet are living up to all the light they have; doing God’s Will as far as they understand it.  Is it not feasible that those who have exhibited a Christ-Like spirit will be saved in the Kingdom, even though they have never heard of the Name of Jesus or His redemption wrought for them on the cross?  To such I believe it applies.

 

Getting back to the blood sacrifices.  From PP:354-355 we read:  “[354] The most important part of the daily ministration was the service performed in behalf of individuals.  The repentant sinner brought his offering to the door of the tabernacle, and, placing his hand upon the victim’s head, confessed his sins, thus in figure transferring them from himself to the innocent sacrifice.  By his own hand the animal was then slain, and the blood was carried by the priest into the Holy Place and sprinkled before the veil, behind which was the Ark of the Covenant containing the Law that the sinner had transgressed.  By this ceremony the sin was, through the blood, transferred in figure to the Sanctuary.  In some cases the blood was not taken into the Holy Place; but the flesh was then to be eaten by the priest, as Moses directed the sons of Aaron, saying, ‘God hath given it you to bear the iniquity of the congregation.’ [355]

 

“Leviticus 10:17.  Both ceremonies alike symbolized the transfer of the sin from the penitent to the Sanctuary.  Such was the work that went on day by day throughout the year.  The sins of Israel being thus transferred to the Sanctuary, the Holy Places were defiled, and a special work became necessary for the removal of the sins.”

 

The question may now well be raised, Why did the people need cleansing from their sins on the Day of Atonement if they had already confessed, transferred and been forgiven of them throughout the year?  Once forgiven should they “have had no more conscience of sins?” Hebrews 10:2.  The reason is what is called, “The Close Of Probation.”

 

It is pertinent to remark that salvation is ALWAYS conditional:  “But when the righteous turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and doeth according to all the abominations that the wicked man doeth, shall he live?  All his righteousness that he hath done shall not be mentioned:  in his trespass that he hath trespassed, and in his sin that he hath sinned, in them shall he die.”  Ezekiel 18:24.

 

When a man confesses his sin, he is freely forgiven (1Jo. 1:9).  However, they may show by their lives that their repentance is not permanent, and “a remembrance again [is] made of sins,” Hebrews 10:3, and is again recorded.  Just as in the parable of the unmerciful servant as told by Christ in Matthew, Chapter 18.  This servant was repentant (because he got caught; plus the fee was too heavy for him, since true repentance was not within his heart), and as such, he went right back into his old ways.  So also, was it in the days of Israel of old.  When the Day of Atonement came, each offender had an opportunity to show that he was still of the same mindset; the same repentant mind.  “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.”  Leviticus 16:30.  And it is at this point (the Close of Probation) that the redeemed are not only forgiven, but cleansed from “all unrighteousness,” First John 1:9.  In a side note, this cancels any notion of “Once Saved Always Saved.”

 

On the Day of Atonement, the sins (which had gone before) of those who had already obtained forgiveness were blotted out.  While the unrepentant sinners have their sins stay on themselves and are “cut off” (Lev. 16:20-22; 23:29).  Here is clearly shown where the people divided themselves into two groups.  The one group afflicted their souls.  They had already confessed their sins, made restitution, and brought their offerings.  Now they awaited the hoped-for hearing of the High Priest’s bells, signifying that God had accepted them and their sins were blotted out.  The other group had no part.  They had not confessed their sins (in a repentant manor), made restitution, nor brought their offerings.  Their sins remained with them and they were “cut off.”

 

Thus, when the Day of Atonement was over the camp was clean.  So, one of two things happened.  First, sin had been removed from the sinner (forever, when Christ Comes causing the “Close of Probation).  And Second, the sinner himself was removed from the camp (destroyed “with the brightness of His Coming:” 2Th. 2:8).  In either case the camp was made clean.  And thus shall it be at the end of the world:  “And it shall come to pass, that he that is left in Zion, and he that remaineth in Jerusalem, shall be called holy, even every one that is written among the living in Jerusalem.”  Isaiah 4:3.

 

 

G) THE MEAL OFFERING

 

 

In a side note, (Lev. Chp. 2 & 6:14-23) there was a particular offering that was bloodless, yet acceptable of our Lord.  And that offering was designated and called “The Meal Offering.”  The Hebrew words “korban minchah,” which we translate (“minchah”) as “meal,” literally means, “gift,” or (“korban minchah”), “to give a present.”  It refers to any “gift” presented to our Lord (see Gen. 4:3 as an example), or mankind (see Gen. 32:13).  This offering was not only a “gift” to God, but there is also a sense of it being the personal property of the offerer, the fruit of his own labor (Exo. 23:16; Lev. 22:25).

 

It is an offering that transforms into one’s thankfulness for God’s Love and goodness bestowed towards or upon them.  In considering “The Meal Offering,” it must be remembered, or understood, that the preparation of this offering required the crushing, or grounding of the meal into a fine powder.  Thus, the representation of what our Lord went through in order to insure His everlasting habitation with His people is clearly brought forth and understood by His suffering before and during the cross.

 

Another thing to understand is that “The Meal Offering” always accompanied the burnt offering.  There is one exception given in Scripture where “The Meal Offering” could be substituted for a blood sacrifice (noted before; see above).  If an Israelite was so poor that he could not afford the already very inexpensive offering of “two turtledoves,” or “two young pigeons,” then, and only then, could a tenth part of an ephah of fine flour be brought as a sin offering (Lev. 5:11-13).  However, it had to be offered without any oil or frankincense, thus symbolizing that it lacked the character of the usual “burnt offering,” or regular “Meal Offering.”  Thus, there are two types of “Meal Offerings.”  Leave it to our Lord to ALWAYS be considerate of the “poor” (sinner; you and me).

​