Lesson Themes: Hebrews makes clear that the substitutionary death of Jesus is necessary to save us, because “without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins” (Heb. 9:22, NRSV). Blood stands for the life of the substitute. The demand that the transgressor die was fulfilled by Jesus, who died once for all as an infinite sacrifice for all humanity.
The Old Testament delineates more than one kind of offering. Leviticus enumerates burnt offerings for atonement, grain offerings in gratitude for God’s provision, fellowship offerings for communal meals with family and friends, sin offerings for the redemption of sin in cases of accidental sins, and reparation offerings for cases of restitution (see Leviticus 1–6). But, as Paul points out, these sacrifices, including those offered on the Day of Atonement, were ultimately ineffective because they could never take away sins (Heb. 10:1–4). Only the “precious blood of Christ,” to which all these sacrifices pointed, could do that (Heb. 9:14, 1 Pet. 1:19).
Part II: Commentary
As we saw last week, Hebrews 7 talks about Melchizedek who was superior to the Aaronic line of priests. Consequently, Christ is superior to the Levitical priesthood because He is a priest according to the order of Melchizedek. Hebrews 8 talks about the superiority of the second covenant, whose efficacy is further discussed in Hebrews 9:15. The first covenant, established with the Levites, was defective and could not remove sins (Heb. 7:11; Heb. 9:9).
In Hebrews 9, Paul also speaks of Christ’s superior sacrifice. Why is it superior? First, His offering is not applied in the earthly sanctuary but in the heavenly one (Heb. 9:23, 24). Second, the blood that He offers is not from an animal but is His own blood (Heb. 9:25, 26). Finally, the sacrifice of Christ is uniquely singular (Heb. 9:12, 28, NRSV, “once for all”) and effective (Heb. 9:14, NRSV, “purify our conscience”; Heb. 10:14, NRSV, “perfected for all time”) in contrast to the animal sacrifices (Heb. 10:1, 4).
The Dilemma of the Altar of Incense in the Most Holy: Hebrews 9 poses what appears to be a discrepancy. In verses 3 and 4 it says: “Behind the second curtain was a tent called the Holy of Holies. In it stood the golden altar of incense and the ark of the covenant overlaid on all sides with gold” (NRSV). This text seems at odds with Exodus 30:6, “You shall place it [the altar of incense] in front of the curtain” (NRSV), which indicates that the altar of incense was not in the Most Holy apartment, but in the Holy Place, together with the lampstand and the table with the consecrated bread. At this altar of incense, Aaron was supposed to burn incense “every morning” (Exod. 30:7, NRSV). Similarly, other passages in the Pentateuch place the altar of incense in the Holy Place, not in the Most Holy Place (Exod. 40:5, 26). So, why does Paul place the golden altar of incense in the Most Holy Place?
How do we account for this apparent anomaly?
Paul might have been thinking along these lines: “Although positioned in the main hall (i.e., the holy place), the altar of incense (compare Exod. 30:1–10; 1 Chron. 28:18) ‘belonged to the debir’ (the Most Holy Place). It appears that the ritual burning of incense performed upon this altar had a direct effect on the Most Holy Place where God manifested His presence between the cherubim. After all, the smoke of incense most likely suffused the inner room. This may explain why Hebrews places the altar of incense in the Most Holy Place (Heb. 9:4).”—The SDA International Bible Commentary, entry on Hebrews 9:4.
Also it is important to note that in the Greek the author of Hebrews does not actually state that the altar of incense stood in the second apartment; only that the Most Holy “had” the altar. The word translated “had” (NKJV) may be rendered “contained,” but this is not its only or necessary meaning.
“The connection between the altar and the most holy place here indicated may be that its function was closely connected with the most holy place. The incense offered daily on this altar was directed to the mercy seat in the most holy. There God manifested His presence between the cherubim, and as the incense ascended with the prayers of the worshipers, it filled the most holy place as well as the holy. The veil that separated the two apartments did not extend to the ceiling but reached only partway. Thus incense could be offered in the holy place—the only place where ordinary priests might enter—and yet reach the second apartment, the place to which it was directed.”—The SDA Bible Commentary, vol. 7, p. 449.
Also the word used by Paul for the “altar” (thymiatērion) came to be used in the Septuagint Greek translation of the Old Testament to refer to the censer by itself (2 Chron. 26:19; Ezek. 8:11). The high priest carried this censer with him into the Most Holy Place on the Day of Atonement (Lev. 16:12).
In any case, Paul’s focus does not seem to be so much on the rooms and furniture, since verse 5 says: “Of these things we cannot speak now in detail.” This verse implies that more important than the furniture and its placement is the point that Paul is making by referring to them, namely, the superiority of Christ’s sacrifice.
“The incense, ascending with the prayers of Israel, represents the merits and intercession of Christ, His perfect righteousness, which through faith is imputed to His people, and which can alone make the worship of sinful beings acceptable to God. Before the veil of the most holy place was an altar of perpetual intercession, before the holy, an altar of continual atonement. By blood and by incense God was to be approached—symbols pointing to the great Mediator, through whom sinners may approach Jehovah, and through whom alone mercy and salvation can be granted to the repentant, believing soul.”—Ellen G. White, Patriarchs and Prophets, p. 353.
Substitutionary Death of Christ: Substitution and satisfaction are terms that have aroused a lot of criticism. Why would God need some kind of substitution for the penalty of humanity’s sins? What does substitution mean? Substitution in this context means that someone takes the place of someone else in order to bear that person’s punishment for the purpose of saving him or her.
As to the second term, satisfaction, we must ask, What needed to be satisfied? Does the Bible support the concept of substitutionary death with the idea of the Substitution satisfying the claims of the law? Substitution occurs in the case of Abraham. When he was on Mount Moriah to sacrifice his son Isaac, “Abraham went and took the ram and offered it up as a burnt offering instead of his son” (Gen. 22:13, NRSV; emphasis added). In the Passover narrative, life was spared by substitution. But the only firstborn males spared were those whose families sacrificed a lamb and put its blood on the doorposts (Exod. 12:7, 13). The whole sacrificial system was based on substitution. Because the penalty for sin is death, the substitute animal was killed, thereby sparing the sinner’s life (Lev. 17:11).
Turning to the New Testament, we find that John the Baptist identifies Jesus as “the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!” (John 1:29, NRSV; emphasis added). Paul declared: “For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed” (1 Cor. 5:7, ESV). In the letter to the Ephesians, this same Paul is unambiguous: “Christ loved us and gave himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God” (Eph. 5:2, NRSV; emphasis added). In Romans, Paul states: “while we still were sinners Christ died for us” (Rom. 5:8, NRSV; emphasis added). The Bible is full of substitution and sin-bearing language. (For more examples, see Isa. 53:12; Mark 10:45; 2 Cor. 5:14; 1 Tim. 2:6; Heb. 9:28; 1 Pet. 2:24.) Hebrews crowns this topic with the indisputable, though often ignored, statement that “without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins” (Heb. 9:22, NRSV). What blood? It cannot be the blood of animals, because “it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins” (Heb. 10:4, NRSV). Thus, it has to be the blood, the life, of Christ.
Jesus bore our sins and died for us. Thus, we must not view Christ as a mere third party, an individual separated from God and humanity. Such a view would brutally distort the understanding of atonement. Christ would be portrayed then as Someone simply pacifying the Father. God, in turn, would be shown as punishing the innocent Jesus, just so that we guilty people could survive. The broken unity between the Father and the Son comes to full view in Paul’s great reconciliation statement in which the Father takes action through the Son: “All this [new creation in Christ] is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ” (2 Cor. 5:18, NRSV).
Our Substitute was neither Christ alone, nor God alone, but God in Christ, who was both God and man. God in Christ substituted Himself for us. Thus, the objections to a substitutionary atonement disappear. There is nothing immoral (lawbreaking) here, because the Substitute for the law breakers is the Lawmaker, who only could make atonement for transgression. The Cross is no transactional bargain with the devil. But as God, Christ reconciled us to Himself to “satisfy the claims of the broken law, and thus He [Christ] bridges the gulf which sin has made.”—Ellen G. White, Selected Messages, book 1, p. 341.
Part III: Life Application
In the context of Christ’s substitution, consider the refrain of the hymn entitled “And Can It Be?” (The Seventh-day Adventist Hymnal, no. 198): “Amazing love! How can it be that Thou, my God, shouldst die for me?” What does this sentiment mean to you personally?
Why is substitution so central to the whole plan of salvation? What does it tell us about how bad sin is that it took the self-sacrifice of “God in Christ” in order to solve the problem and offer us the hope of eternal life?
Notes
Adjust My Preferences
Welcome! Please set your reading preferences below.
You can access this panel later by clicking the
preference icon
in the top right of the page.
Key Texts: Heb. 9:15; Gen. 15:6–21; Jer. 34:8–22; Eph. 3:14–19; Heb. 7:27; Heb. 10:10; Heb. 9:22–28.
Lesson Themes: Hebrews makes clear that the substitutionary death of Jesus is necessary to save us, because “without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins” (Heb. 9:22, NRSV). Blood stands for the life of the substitute. The demand that the transgressor die was fulfilled by Jesus, who died once for all as an infinite sacrifice for all humanity.
The Old Testament delineates more than one kind of offering. Leviticus enumerates burnt offerings for atonement, grain offerings in gratitude for God’s provision, fellowship offerings for communal meals with family and friends, sin offerings for the redemption of sin in cases of accidental sins, and reparation offerings for cases of restitution (see Leviticus 1–6). But, as Paul points out, these sacrifices, including those offered on the Day of Atonement, were ultimately ineffective because they could never take away sins (Heb. 10:1–4). Only the “precious blood of Christ,” to which all these sacrifices pointed, could do that (Heb. 9:14, 1 Pet. 1:19).
Part II: Commentary
As we saw last week, Hebrews 7 talks about Melchizedek who was superior to the Aaronic line of priests. Consequently, Christ is superior to the Levitical priesthood because He is a priest according to the order of Melchizedek. Hebrews 8 talks about the superiority of the second covenant, whose efficacy is further discussed in Hebrews 9:15. The first covenant, established with the Levites, was defective and could not remove sins (Heb. 7:11; Heb. 9:9).
In Hebrews 9, Paul also speaks of Christ’s superior sacrifice. Why is it superior? First, His offering is not applied in the earthly sanctuary but in the heavenly one (Heb. 9:23, 24). Second, the blood that He offers is not from an animal but is His own blood (Heb. 9:25, 26). Finally, the sacrifice of Christ is uniquely singular (Heb. 9:12, 28, NRSV, “once for all”) and effective (Heb. 9:14, NRSV, “purify our conscience”; Heb. 10:14, NRSV, “perfected for all time”) in contrast to the animal sacrifices (Heb. 10:1, 4).
The Dilemma of the Altar of Incense in the Most Holy: Hebrews 9 poses what appears to be a discrepancy. In verses 3 and 4 it says: “Behind the second curtain was a tent called the Holy of Holies. In it stood the golden altar of incense and the ark of the covenant overlaid on all sides with gold” (NRSV). This text seems at odds with Exodus 30:6, “You shall place it [the altar of incense] in front of the curtain” (NRSV), which indicates that the altar of incense was not in the Most Holy apartment, but in the Holy Place, together with the lampstand and the table with the consecrated bread. At this altar of incense, Aaron was supposed to burn incense “every morning” (Exod. 30:7, NRSV). Similarly, other passages in the Pentateuch place the altar of incense in the Holy Place, not in the Most Holy Place (Exod. 40:5, 26). So, why does Paul place the golden altar of incense in the Most Holy Place?
How do we account for this apparent anomaly?
Paul might have been thinking along these lines: “Although positioned in the main hall (i.e., the holy place), the altar of incense (compare Exod. 30:1–10; 1 Chron. 28:18) ‘belonged to the debir’ (the Most Holy Place). It appears that the ritual burning of incense performed upon this altar had a direct effect on the Most Holy Place where God manifested His presence between the cherubim. After all, the smoke of incense most likely suffused the inner room. This may explain why Hebrews places the altar of incense in the Most Holy Place (Heb. 9:4).”—The SDA International Bible Commentary, entry on Hebrews 9:4.
Also it is important to note that in the Greek the author of Hebrews does not actually state that the altar of incense stood in the second apartment; only that the Most Holy “had” the altar. The word translated “had” (NKJV) may be rendered “contained,” but this is not its only or necessary meaning.
“The connection between the altar and the most holy place here indicated may be that its function was closely connected with the most holy place. The incense offered daily on this altar was directed to the mercy seat in the most holy. There God manifested His presence between the cherubim, and as the incense ascended with the prayers of the worshipers, it filled the most holy place as well as the holy. The veil that separated the two apartments did not extend to the ceiling but reached only partway. Thus incense could be offered in the holy place—the only place where ordinary priests might enter—and yet reach the second apartment, the place to which it was directed.”—The SDA Bible Commentary, vol. 7, p. 449.
Also the word used by Paul for the “altar” (thymiatērion) came to be used in the Septuagint Greek translation of the Old Testament to refer to the censer by itself (2 Chron. 26:19; Ezek. 8:11). The high priest carried this censer with him into the Most Holy Place on the Day of Atonement (Lev. 16:12).
In any case, Paul’s focus does not seem to be so much on the rooms and furniture, since verse 5 says: “Of these things we cannot speak now in detail.” This verse implies that more important than the furniture and its placement is the point that Paul is making by referring to them, namely, the superiority of Christ’s sacrifice.
“The incense, ascending with the prayers of Israel, represents the merits and intercession of Christ, His perfect righteousness, which through faith is imputed to His people, and which can alone make the worship of sinful beings acceptable to God. Before the veil of the most holy place was an altar of perpetual intercession, before the holy, an altar of continual atonement. By blood and by incense God was to be approached—symbols pointing to the great Mediator, through whom sinners may approach Jehovah, and through whom alone mercy and salvation can be granted to the repentant, believing soul.”—Ellen G. White, Patriarchs and Prophets, p. 353.
Substitutionary Death of Christ: Substitution and satisfaction are terms that have aroused a lot of criticism. Why would God need some kind of substitution for the penalty of humanity’s sins? What does substitution mean? Substitution in this context means that someone takes the place of someone else in order to bear that person’s punishment for the purpose of saving him or her.
As to the second term, satisfaction, we must ask, What needed to be satisfied? Does the Bible support the concept of substitutionary death with the idea of the Substitution satisfying the claims of the law? Substitution occurs in the case of Abraham. When he was on Mount Moriah to sacrifice his son Isaac, “Abraham went and took the ram and offered it up as a burnt offering instead of his son” (Gen. 22:13, NRSV; emphasis added). In the Passover narrative, life was spared by substitution. But the only firstborn males spared were those whose families sacrificed a lamb and put its blood on the doorposts (Exod. 12:7, 13). The whole sacrificial system was based on substitution. Because the penalty for sin is death, the substitute animal was killed, thereby sparing the sinner’s life (Lev. 17:11).
Turning to the New Testament, we find that John the Baptist identifies Jesus as “the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!” (John 1:29, NRSV; emphasis added). Paul declared: “For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed” (1 Cor. 5:7, ESV). In the letter to the Ephesians, this same Paul is unambiguous: “Christ loved us and gave himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God” (Eph. 5:2, NRSV; emphasis added). In Romans, Paul states: “while we still were sinners Christ died for us” (Rom. 5:8, NRSV; emphasis added). The Bible is full of substitution and sin-bearing language. (For more examples, see Isa. 53:12; Mark 10:45; 2 Cor. 5:14; 1 Tim. 2:6; Heb. 9:28; 1 Pet. 2:24.) Hebrews crowns this topic with the indisputable, though often ignored, statement that “without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins” (Heb. 9:22, NRSV). What blood? It cannot be the blood of animals, because “it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins” (Heb. 10:4, NRSV). Thus, it has to be the blood, the life, of Christ.
Jesus bore our sins and died for us. Thus, we must not view Christ as a mere third party, an individual separated from God and humanity. Such a view would brutally distort the understanding of atonement. Christ would be portrayed then as Someone simply pacifying the Father. God, in turn, would be shown as punishing the innocent Jesus, just so that we guilty people could survive. The broken unity between the Father and the Son comes to full view in Paul’s great reconciliation statement in which the Father takes action through the Son: “All this [new creation in Christ] is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ” (2 Cor. 5:18, NRSV).
Our Substitute was neither Christ alone, nor God alone, but God in Christ, who was both God and man. God in Christ substituted Himself for us. Thus, the objections to a substitutionary atonement disappear. There is nothing immoral (lawbreaking) here, because the Substitute for the law breakers is the Lawmaker, who only could make atonement for transgression. The Cross is no transactional bargain with the devil. But as God, Christ reconciled us to Himself to “satisfy the claims of the broken law, and thus He [Christ] bridges the gulf which sin has made.”—Ellen G. White, Selected Messages, book 1, p. 341.
Part III: Life Application
In the context of Christ’s substitution, consider the refrain of the hymn entitled “And Can It Be?” (The Seventh-day Adventist Hymnal, no. 198): “Amazing love! How can it be that Thou, my God, shouldst die for me?” What does this sentiment mean to you personally?
Why is substitution so central to the whole plan of salvation? What does it tell us about how bad sin is that it took the self-sacrifice of “God in Christ” in order to solve the problem and offer us the hope of eternal life?
Notes