Day of Reconciliation

@DaveXR650

One important thing that stood out to me in Rillera's book was his use of "Day of Decontamination" rather than "Day of Atonement".

I realize he was saying that atonement in Christianity is not like the pagan view (a sacrifice to appease angry gods) but instead focused on cleansing. I agree with him, although I would prefer "Day of Purification" as this is inline with English translations of the Levitical system.

Here is what he wrote:

"Jesus’s life-blood effects moral purification on analogy to the purgative ash-water for corpse impurity and as such simply is the promised washing in the divine Spirit."


In Leviticus 30 God tells us the purpose of kippur , the Day of Atonement, is to purify the people of their sins. It was is literally understood as the "Day of Purification" or, as "decontamination" from sin.

Here is God telling the Hebrew people the meaning of the Day of "Atonement" (reconciliation):

"This is to be a lasting ordinance for you: On the tenth day of the seventh month you must deny yourselves and not do any work—whether native-born or a foreigner residing among you— because on this day atonement will be made for you, to cleanse you. Then, before the Lord, you will be clean from all your sins."

I like this view better than the PSA model because it matches the Levitical system and I believe this OT sacrifice system foreshadowed (or was a "witness to") the work of Christ.

The killing of the animal was never called "making atonement" in the OT. It was always the priest taking the blood into the Tabernacle or Temple.

Also, the priest "made atonement" for inanimate objects (he made atonement for the tent of meeting, for the furnishings in the Tabernacle/ Temple). But this was with the blood after the animal had been slain.

I don't know Jon. If I understand what you have said from previous posts, multiple times, if you are right in your beliefs then my faith and the faith of the Reformers, Reformed Baptists, Free Will Baptists, Methodists and many other groups is a false gospel and if we truly believe in PSA as being a true representation of the atonement of Christ then we are on our way to Hell. Is that or is that not what you have been saying?

If you have read Rillera's book, is that what he is saying? Because if that is true, then this:

JonC said:

One important thing that stood out to me in Rillera's book was his use of "Day of Decontamination" rather than "Day of Atonement".

Click to expand...

Is just playing with word salads. What is his point? I can tell you that kipper has several different meanings, and I would just be saying what I read in someone's secondary source (like you have done with your secondary source) but is there really any sense in this? In Numbers 25:10-13 it looks like kipper was used as making atonement by running a spear through an Israelite man and his Moabite consort. But in a way, it was also "cleansing" the area of filthy behavior. All I'm saying is that you may as well go with what it is you like. I will do the same with the sources I like. I don't think anyone else on this board knows or cares what we are talking about.

So I really don't care to argue another 175 posts, largely between me and you alone. I will say this. You apparently were right in that this is big. (The attack on PSA from without, which I was expecting, and from within which I was oblivious to.) And I came by this from among all people, James White in one of his videos. To me, this is the heart of the gospel and I do not consider someone who rejects PSA a fellow believer. He doesn't either, and neither did John Owen. So yeah, the only thing that bothers me more than a Baptist site with the only moderator being of a different faith is that no one else on it seems to care.

DaveXR650 said:

If I understand what you have said from previous posts, multiple times, if you are right in your beliefs then my faith and the faith of the Reformers, Reformed Baptists, Free Will Baptists, Methodists and many other groups is a false gospel...

Click to expand...

You misunderstand. I was a PSA theorist and also believed the gospel of Jesus Christ. It is only when one views PSA as the gospel that demonstrate they are not saved.

DaveXR650 said:

If you have read Rillera's book, is that what he is saying? Because if that is true, then this:

Is just playing with word salads. What is his point?

Click to expand...

He is saying that kippur deals with purification. He says "decintamination" but most translations use "purification" and "cleanses".

No, that is not a "word salad". Those words are used as synonyms. The reason is they mean the same thing.

Christ's blood cleanses from all unrighteousness. The priest "made atonement for" (purified) the tent of meeting and the furnishings before he "made atonement for" (cleansing) the dins of the people.

Anyway, this thread is discussing how the Bible describes the Day of Atonement (Reconciliation).

The claim before us is that atonement (reconciliation) at the Day of Atonement (reconciliation) is not about punishing sins or paying a debt of sin but instead about purification.



Aaron was to slaughter the goat for the sin offering for the people. He was to sprinkle it on the atonement cover and in front of it.

In this way he made atonement for the Most Holy Place because of the uncleanness and rebellion of the Israelites, whatever their sins have been.

He was to make atonement for the tent of meeting.

He was to come out to the altar that is before the Lord and make atonement for it.

He was to sprinkle some of the blood on it with his finger seven times to cleanse it and to consecrate it from the uncleanness of the Israelites.

When Aaron has finished making atonement for the Most Holy Place, the tent of meeting and the altar, he shall bring forward the live goat.



This is to be a lasting ordinance for Israel - "On the tenth day of the seventh month you must deny yourselves and not do any work—whether native-born or a foreigner residing among you— because on this day atonement will be made for you, to cleanse you. Then, before the Lord, you will be clean from all your sins."


Somehow this has been changed to mimic the pagan sacrifices - killing an animal to appease the gods.

The question is how? With all that God has said, how does man turn to PSA?

JonC said:

Anyway, this thread is discussing how the Bible describes the Day of Atonement (Reconciliation).

The claim before us is that atonement (reconciliation) at the Day of Atonement (reconciliation) is not about punishing sins or paying a debt of sin but instead about purification.



Aaron was to slaughter the goat for the sin offering for the people. He was to sprinkle it on the atonement cover and in front of it.

In this way he made atonement for the Most Holy Place because of the uncleanness and rebellion of the Israelites, whatever their sins have been.

He was to make atonement for the tent of meeting.

He was to come out to the altar that is before the Lord and make atonement for it.

He was to sprinkle some of the blood on it with his finger seven times to cleanse it and to consecrate it from the uncleanness of the Israelites.

When Aaron has finished making atonement for the Most Holy Place, the tent of meeting and the altar, he shall bring forward the live goat.



This is to be a lasting ordinance for Israel - "On the tenth day of the seventh month you must deny yourselves and not do any work—whether native-born or a foreigner residing among you— because on this day atonement will be made for you, to cleanse you. Then, before the Lord, you will be clean from all your sins."


Somehow this has been changed to mimic the pagan sacrifices - killing an animal to appease the gods.

The question is how? With all that God has said, how does man turn to PSA?

Click to expand...

What we have here is a most basic misunderstanding of the typical meaning of the Levitical offerings. They are not intended to prefigure salvation. You need to go to the the Passover and the crossing of the Red Sea for that. The Levitical offerings are to do with the work of Christ relating to worship and communion.
But, as I have written before, there are three parties to the offerings: an offerer, an offering and a priest who presents the offering to God. Who is the offerer? Christ is the offerer. 'How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?'
Who is the offering? Christ is the offering. 'Previously saying, "Sacrifice and offering, burnt offerings and offerings for sin You did not desire nor had pleasure in them" (which are offered according to the law), then He said, "Behold, I have come to do Your will, O God." He takes away the first that He may establish the second. By that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.'
Who is the priest? Christ is the priest. 'And every priest stands ministering daily and offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God forever..... for by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified.'

To give a full account of all the Levitical offerings would take more time than I have to give at present. I will just advise folk to look through the Book of Hebrews to see the Holy Spirit's own commentary on the offerings.

JonC said:

You misunderstand. I was a PSA theorist and also believed the gospel of Jesus Christ. It is only when one views PSA as the gospel that demonstrate they are not saved.

Click to expand...

I think you are viewing certain antinomian teaching or at least understandings that take a view that if your sins have been put on Christ then nothing can be done or should be done to live the Christian life, avoid sin or be holy. That would demonstrate someone who may not be saved at all.

JonC said:

Christ's blood cleanses from all unrighteousness. The priest "made atonement for" (purified) the tent of meeting and the furnishings before he "made atonement for" (cleansing) the dins of the people.

Click to expand...

The metaphors of purification and cleansing I would think would not be controversial unless they are being used as a weapon to denounce PSA. "What can wash away my sin? Nothing but the blood of Jesus" is happily sung by believers in PSA. The word salad is thus the changing of words and phrases to try to subtly change a meaning that in not really in dispute.

I don't like "Day of decontamination" because it reminds me of getting the hood ready for making chemo, not purifying a sinful people. You have to keep in mind all that is involved here. Purification, and cleansing are fine as long as you remember that this is people's actual sin and behavior we are talking about as what it is that needs to be cleansed. Once you focus on the fact that this is a moral purification you begin to understand the ramifications of failure in this - that God's view of this sin that must be cleansed is such that walking into the holy area or touching the wrong thing or wearing the wrong garment could result in instant death by the hand of God directly - you begin to understand what it is to be purified and cleansed.

JonC said:

The killing of the animal was never called "making atonement" in the OT. It was always the priest taking the blood into the Tabernacle or Temple.

Also, the priest "made atonement" for inanimate objects (he made atonement for the tent of meeting, for the furnishings in the Tabernacle/ Temple). But this was with the blood after the animal had been slain.

Click to expand...

I also don't believe it is valid to try to separate the death of the animal from actually applying the blood as far as the definition of "making atonement" is concerned. I would simply say that there is a reason there is no remission of sin without the shedding of blood and that a priest would have been killed instantly had he dared enter the inner chamber with blood that had been bled from the same qualified animal which had not been killed.

Like I said, I am not going to go back and forth with you on the meanings of "kipper". You are using your books and I am using mine, and I have to depend totally upon those books. I cannot go beyond someone else's study of Hebrew or Greek translations of Hebrew. I never know what guys like Rillera are trying to do. By insisting that these things are "cleansing" and "purification" they hope to prove that this is not an ancient Israelite putting his hand on an animal and slaying it with the idea of transferring his personal sin to the animal. But his own argument seems to have that sin as a deadly barrier between God and man that by God's own design must have an animal slain and blood shed and applied or else there will be no possibility of having this insurmountable barrier removed.

So I guess my question is whether Rillera is trying to say that this is equivalent to me wiping down and decontaminating the IV hood or is it purification of a sinful people before they can approach a Holy God. If it is the latter, and it is sin, actual human committed sin and the uncleanness involved in being a sinful man, then there is really not much difference. Because once you make the connection that Hebrews does, that Jesus is entering the inner chamber with his own blood, and that it was his death that occurred in a way that we know of, and that it was his plan and God's, then you will soon realize he was indeed acting as a substitute for us.

At any rate, I appreciate you putting up excerpts from Rillera's book as I probably won't be buying a copy for myself. I don't know if you have gotten this far yet but if you have, I would ask, in his own opinion, what does he say about how an individual can be saved or made right with God. And what is the state of just an average church going person. What would he have them to do? Does he view the average non-believer on the street as "lost" or what?

DaveXR650 said:

At any rate, I appreciate you putting up excerpts from Rillera's book as I probably won't be buying a copy for myself. I don't know if you have gotten this far yet but if you have, I would ask, in his own opinion, what does he say about how an individual can be saved or made right with God. And what is the state of just an average church going person. What would he have them to do? Does he view the average non-believer on the street as "lost" or what?

Click to expand...

Last thing first.

He viewes the issue within a vovenantal framework. The book itself focuses on the aspects of the sacrificial system and how it was misused-misinterpreted in more contemporary history to support a theory. (He focused on ancient judiasm as a minor earning his PhD at Duke).

But he presents the atonement within the language of a covenant. "Without the shedding of blood thete is no forgiveness" comes from Hebrews 9, the shedding of blood being necessary for a new covenant to begin. ("Therefore even the first covenant was not inaugurated without blood..." ).

The difference is not "what one must do to be right with God" but what Jesus has done and the implications.

"Repent and believe" is what must happen. What then occurs is one will be made perfect, cleansed from all unrighteousness. Im the end we are "refined as precious medial is refined", completely purified, cleansed, made into the image of Christ, made righteous, glorified, made new creations. He presents Christ as the Forerunner and men being made in His image (Christ being a second Adam).


In other words, what we must do is the same. The difference is he rejects the atonement as being an event that changes God in favor of an act thst changes us.

DaveXR650 said:

I don't like "Day of decontamination" because it reminds me of getting the hood ready for making chemo, not purifying a sinful people.

Click to expand...

I did not like it because I think of radiological decontamination. But I am warming up to it.

Biblically it is the "Day of Decontamination" (that is the language God uses).

The priest makes atonement for the tent of meeting, for the furnishings. The priest makes atonement for the alter.

Only after the priest has made atonement for the tent of meeting and the furnishings does he make atonement for the sins of the people.

And God calls it "purifying", "washing", "cleansing". It is literally decontamination. In Leviticus God even tells Israel that this is the day of cleansing (decontamination from sin).

The reason you do not like it is because it is not PSA itself.

DaveXR650 said:

Because once you make the connection that Hebrews does, that Jesus is entering the inner chamber with his own blood, and that it was his death that occurred in a way that we know of, and that it was his plan and God's, then you will soon realize he was indeed acting as a substitute for us.

Click to expand...

I disagree. Nowhere in Hebrews is Christ presented as a substitute. You are reaching here.

What does Hebrew say? Christ enters this Most Holy Place once for all. He purifies us. Nothing at all about substitution. Not even one word.

He purifies us, makes us like Him, in His image. PSA entirely misses the atonement by assuming it mimicked pagan sacrifices (trying to change their gods attitude towards them).

In the Bible what changes is man rather than God.

@DaveXR650

I think the best method here is to go to the biblical text. Let God say which position is right because in the end of the day your understanding and my understanding only has implications to you and me. They matter only because they may show our fate. But in terms of which (if either) is correct we have to turn to God's words.



In Leviticus 16 (Day of Atonement) Aaron makes atonement for:

1. The tent of meeting
2. The Most Holy Place
3. The altar
4. The sins of the people

God makes this an ordinance:

"This is to be a lasting ordinance for you: because on this day atonement will be made for you, to cleanse you. Then, before the Lord, you will be clean from all your sins."


This is how God describes the Day of Atonement -

"He is to put on the sacred linen garments and make atonement for the Most Holy Place, for the tent of meeting and the altar, and for the priests and all the members of the community."

This is how Hebrews 9 describes the Day of Atonement in the OT:

"This is an illustration for the present time, indicating that the gifts and sacrifices being offered were not able to clear the conscience of the worshiper. They are only a matter of food and drink and various ceremonial washings—external regulations applying until the time of the new order."

This is how Hebrews 9 describes Christ's atoning work:

"Christ came as high priest of the good things that are now already here, he went through the greater and more perfect tabernacle that is not made with human hands, that is to say, is not a part of this creation... but he entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, thus obtaining eternal redemption....How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death, so that we may serve the living God!"

"For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant...now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant. In the case of a will, it is necessary to prove the death of the one who made it, because a will is in force only when somebody has died; it never takes effect while the one who made it is living. This is why even the first covenant was not put into effect without blood. When Moses had proclaimed every command of the law to all the people, he took the blood of calves, together with water, scarlet wool and branches of hyssop, and sprinkled the scroll and all the people. He said, “This is the blood of the covenant, which God has commanded you to keep.” In the same way, he sprinkled with the blood both the tabernacle and everything used in its ceremonies. In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness."


What passage states that this is a substitution?

JonC said:

"For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant...now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant. In the case of a will, it is necessary to prove the death of the one who made it, because a will is in force only when somebody has died; it never takes effect while the one who made it is living. This is why even the first covenant was not put into effect without blood. When Moses had proclaimed every command of the law to all the people, he took the blood of calves, together with water, scarlet wool and branches of hyssop, and sprinkled the scroll and all the people. He said, “This is the blood of the covenant, which God has commanded you to keep.” In the same way, he sprinkled with the blood both the tabernacle and everything used in its ceremonies. In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness."


What passage states that this is a substitution?

Click to expand...

I would suggest not stopping at verse 22 but reading on down:
Verse 26. "...but now once in the end of the world he hath appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. 27. "And it is appointed unto men once to die and after that the judgement: 28. And so Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.

Notice that the sacrifice of Christ "put away sin". This has nothing to do with decontamination. Something was done with the sin. What? Well, verse 28 says that "Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many". There is clearly substitution. But is it penal? Look at verse 27. Why do you think they stuck that verse in there that "It is appointed unto man once to die and after that the judgement". We as men are all trying to escape the just judgement what we deserve. The way to escape is through Christ and on our part and in verse 28 I don't think it's a stretch to say that "to them that look for him shall he appear" means those who repent and trust in Christ - which is for us to do. But the way this is accomplished is by Christ bearing our sins, as it says in scripture.

If Christ bears your sins, and thus you escape judgement, you have substitutionary atonement. Penal is OK with me to describe judgement with no further explanation, and it really isn't necessary to go into "legal fiction" and so on, although I appreciate those who do. I do not see why if I am a product of western civilization, and have a western understanding of the legal system and of crime and punishment that somehow that makes all my "theories" invalid. But as you can see, it isn't necessary. This is clearly in scripture. If you don't want to name it PSA then you don't have to but I would be careful about rejecting the concept.

Martin Marprelate said:

What we have here is a most basic misunderstanding of the typical meaning of the Levitical offerings. They are not intended to prefigure salvation.

Click to expand...

I disagree.

The Levitical offerings are as described in the biblical text. They are describing what Jesus did to redeem us.

Martin Marprelate said:

You need to go to the the Passover and the crossing of the Red Sea for that.

Click to expand...

Yes, the Passover also shows us this salvation (it is not another salvation but the same work of Christ foreshadowed).

Note the Passover. Was there a substitution? No. Did killing an animal appease God? No.

It as the blood applied.

"The blood will be a sign for you on the houses where you are, and when I see the blood, I will pass over you. No destructive plague will touch you when I strike Egypt."

You are assuming your theory os correct and then using God's words as addendums to your theory.

We have to be more faithful to the biblical text.

Our salvation is both escaping the wrath to come and being clansed from all unrighteousness.

No verse offers penal substitution.

JonC said:

I disagree.

The Levitical offerings are as described in the biblical text. They are describing what Jesus did to redeem us.


Yes, the Passover also shows us this salvation (it is not another salvation but the same work of Christ foreshadowed).

Note the Passover. Was there a substitution? No. Did killing an animal appease God? No.

It as the blood applied.

"The blood will be a sign for you on the houses where you are, and when I see the blood, I will pass over you. No destructive plague will touch you when I strike Egypt."

You are assuming your theory os correct and then using God's words as addendums to your theory.

We have to be more faithful to the biblical text.

Our salvation is both escaping the wrath to come and being clansed from all unrighteousness.

No verse offers penal substitution.

Click to expand...

I agree with including:

Verse 26. "...but now once in the end of the world he hath appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. 27. "And it is appointed unto men once to die and after that the judgement: 28. And so Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation."


What I am saying is the biblical text (the passages before this conclusion) define the atonement in those verses.

What you are doing is assuming a definition for "atonement" and applying that definition to a few verses where instead the passage before those verses have defined atonement.

God set forth His Son as an atonement in Hiz blood. Hebrews 9 and Leviticus 16 define "atonement" as cleansing.

We escape the wrath to come by being "in Christ", by being "cleansed", "washed", "purified" or decontaminated from all unrighteousness.

This atonement is recieved by faith. We will be "cleansed", "refined", "made new creations", "conformed into the image of Christ", made "righteous", "made in His image", "reborn", given "spiritual life", "die to sin", "put to death the flesh", "die with Christ", etc.

This is the atonement per the biblical text. It is not substitution but God reconciling man to Himself in the Person of Christ. He did not bear our sin in order to be punished by God but instead in order to be our forerunner (the Firstborn of many brethern".

DaveXR650 said:

If Christ bears your sins, and thus you escape judgement, you have substitutionary atonement.

Click to expand...

??

No, it is not.

If the biblical text is correct then Jesus bore our sins (came in the likeness of sinful flesh, was made sin, shared our infirmity, shated our humanity, was made like us).

If the biblical text is correct then we escape the wrath to come because we are benefactors of the atonement (reconciliation) as "His blood cleanses us from all unrighteousness", we are "washed", "refined", "purified", "cleansed", we will be "made new creations in Christ", "comformed into Hos image", etc.


You are inserting your theory into the biblical text, but it is nowhere in the actual text. What is in the biblical text satisfies the law, creates justice, and reconciles man to God.


You are still reading a secular philosophy ("all crimes must be punished, punishment satisfies the demands of the law") into Scripture by insisting all sins must be punished, punishment satisfies divine justice.

You are using this secular philosophy verbatum (except you change "crimes" to "sins" and "the law" to "divine justice"). This cannot be coincidence.

JonC said:

What you are doing is assuming a definition for "atonement" and applying that definition to a few verses where instead the passage before those verses have defined atonement.

Click to expand...

Well the verses I used do refer to one aspect but I'm not sure of your point. You left them out and that was OK but if I use them I am somehow limiting the meaning of the passage? The fact is, when you read someone on Hebrews 9, and they are advocates of PSA, they are not bothered at all by the aspect of the blood being thought of as a cleansing or purifying or as a confirmation of a covenant. All they are saying is that ultimately you always get around to our sin causing judgement and separation from God who is holy and pure. Jesus eliminates any wrath or unholiness on our part by bearing our sin and wrath in his own body. His blood is indeed then what truly cleanses and purifies and all the imagery is there to help us understand. Don't leave out any aspect and don't try to pit one aspect against another as if one being true means the other is false.

JonC said:

No, it is not.

If the biblical text is correct then Jesus bore our sins (came in the likeness of sinful flesh, was made sin, shared our infirmity, shated our humanity, was made like us).

Click to expand...

Yes it is. You are the one who by adding the extra things is attempting to hide the obvious. He bore our sins. Thus, we don't bear our sins. If we bore our own sins we would suffer the judgement of God for our sins ourselves. But Jesus bore them instead. It's in the passage.

I do appreciate you bringing out what that book says but I also said I am not going to go around and around with you on this. This has been said now probably 100 times. This is the way I see it. I realize you don't but I'm not going to get back into these meaningless exchanges.

DaveXR650 said:

Yes it is. You are the one who by adding the extra things is attempting to hide the obvious. He bore our sins. Thus, we don't bear our sins.

Click to expand...

No. You are not paying attention to the text.

God says Jesus bore our sins. This does not mean "instead of us" any more than we bearing one another's sorrows means "instead of them" or us not bearing Christ's righteousness as meaning "instead of Him". Or Christ bearing the image of the Father being instead of the Father.

The biblical text states He bore our sins. You should stop there without adding to it.

Also, your complaint is wrong. I added nothing to the words. I believe Jesus bore our sins. I reject your addition to Scripture. You are wrong to alter God's words.


He bore our sins ("the Word was made flesh", He came in the likeness of sinful flesh", "He was made sin", "He shated our infirmity", He became a curze for us", "He shared our humanity") and in Him we escape the wrath to come ("in Him there is no condemnation", we are "made new creations", "conformed into His image", "justified", will be "glorified", are "cleansed of all unrighteousness", are "refined", "purified").

What you call "additions" are actually God's words (the biblical text).


The cool part is if you would be faithful to God's Word then you would see God never clears the guilty, never punishes the Just, yet fulfills the law through a manifestation of His righteousness apart from the law.