Here is the auto transcript from this week’s sermon on the Gospel to the Hebrews, The Power of the Propitiation

Good morning HFF.

Shabbat Shalom to all of you.

When I say it's good to see you, I really mean that.

It is good to be back out and about and I've been looking forward to being back with you and especially to this message.

You know that I say it often and you know by now that I mean it when I say I really love God's Word.

And I have to be honest, I've kind of been looking forward to getting to Hebrews chapter 9.

I think some of you have been kind of looking forward to that too simply because you know that this chapter has a lot of land mines in it that have caused some controversy.

And so I'm sure some of you are here wondering how's Brent going to deal with that?

What's Brent going to say about that?

But I want to begin by suggesting this morning that we're going to look at it in a way probably that will be unexpected to you.

When Jesus was ministering around the Sea of Galilee, there was a pivotal moment in his ministry when he changed the style of his teaching and his instruction about the kingdom of God and that change, that pivotal moment was when he set out in a boat and began to teach the people who were gathered on the shore, probably using the natural amplification, the amphitheater kind of effect, and the Bible says that he began to teach in parables.

This was considered a turning point in his ministry and a lot of people wondered, even his disciples asked him, "Lord, why are you teaching us in parables?"

Because he would begin to teach them that the kingdom of God was like something and then he would use a parable.

So why did he do that?

Because sometimes the best way to communicate a truth about the kingdom was to tell a story that people's hearts and minds would connect with.

But the parable was also used for another dynamic.

It divided those in the crowd who really wanted to hear and those who were just casually listening.

It exposed the hearts of people who were willing to wrestle because the parable, though being very familiar in context, sometimes had a very pointed application that sometimes rubbed people the wrong way.

The Pharisees often knew that the parable was directed at them.

The parable was used to see whose heart was really willing to hear what Jesus was trying to teach them about the kingdom of God.

Today as we continue our study of Hebrews, the writer is going to do the exact same thing.

In fact, we're going to look at Hebrews chapter 9 for what it actually is.

A parable.

That may be a surprise to you.

But I want to show you that that's exactly the methodology that the writer of Hebrews is going to use.

And I would submit to you this morning that like the parables told to Jesus, Hebrews chapter 9, and we've already seen it happen across the body of Christ, it is going to expose our hearts.

It's going to expose hubris or humility.

It is going to expose those who are willing to really wrestle with the things of the kingdom of God, who are really willing to listen to what the author is being, is teaching us by means of the Holy Spirit.

We have three parables we're going to look at this morning.

The parable of the tabernacle, the parable of the Testament, and the parable of the human tent.

Will you pray with me?

Abba, Father, as we come to you this morning, Lord, we come to a section of your word that has caused controversy where it should have brought explanation and understanding.

And so Father, I ask in humility, because I know there are many smart people who have attempted to handle this chapter long before I got here.

I ask Father in humility that your spirit would be the one who teaches us today.

That we would see and we would realize from the scripture what is the message that you are teaching.

And Father, that you would give us ears to hear and eyes to see what your spirit would say to us, to me personally this day in this place.

I pray this all for the glory of Jesus.

Amen.

So we're a little bit of a spoiler alert.

If you've got your Bibles open on your app or on your lap, turn to Hebrews chapter 9, and I want us to start by looking at verse 8 and 9.

Then we're going to backtrack to the beginning of the chapter.

Because I want to make the case that this is a parable before I show you the parable.

The writer of Hebrews says in verse 8 that the Holy Spirit is signifying this, that the way into the holy place has not yet been disclosed while the outer tabernacle is still standing, which is a symbol for the present time.

Do you see that word symbol in verse 9?

That is the Greek word parable, which is the Greek word for parable.

Now I love this Greek word because it's made of two words, par, which means like to come alongside or with, and bole from balo, which means I cast or I throw.

And when Jesus comes and begins this transitional moment when he begins to teach in parables, he chooses a parable that is actually the best way, if you could personify the meaning of the word parable, it would be this.

A sower went out to cast his seed.

He literally chooses a parable that defines what the word parable actually means.

I'm just, I know, I just geek out on the word of God.

I love that.

I mean, that is so cool that he does that.

So the writer of Hebrews, and we're going to go back and look at what it is he's saying as a parable, says that the Holy Spirit is trying to tell us something through this parable.

So let's go back and look at the first parable.

The first parable we're going to call the parable of the tabernacle.

And this tabernacle, this parable has two parts to it that we're going to look at briefly.

The first is the layout of the tabernacle, and the second is what we'll call the liturgy or the ministry or the service of the tabernacle.

Read with me Hebrews chapter nine, one through five.

Now even the first, and I know most of your translations say covenant, but it's not in there.

We're going to leave it as the first because it's talking about the priesthood, the covenant, the command, all of it.

Even the first had regulations of divine worship and the earthly sanctuary.

For there was a tabernacle prepared, the outer one in which were the lampstand and the table and the showbread that is called the holy place.

And behind the second veil, there was a tabernacle which is called the holy of holies, having a golden altar of incense and the ark of the covenant covered on all sides with gold in which was a golden jar holding the manna and Aaron's rod which budded and the tables or tablets of the covenant.

And above it were the cherubim of glory overshadowing the mercy seat.

But of these things, we cannot speak now in detail.

Apparently the writer of Hebrews also had a countdown clock.

All right.

So, now the author wants you to know that the second is not unlike the first.

Last week we talked about how the second is definitively different from shadow to substance, but he doesn't want you to get the understand — get the idea that the second comes in such a way that it's completely incongruous with the one that came at the first.

God isn't gonna throw a wrench into everything that he has taught us because the first is gonna be essential to help us understand the second.

And so he says even the first was — had regulations of divine worship.

I love the way the Bible says this because the Greek really brings out what these regulations were.

They were instructions in righteousness.

Did you know that the Greek word actually emphasizes that aspect of all of these things, whether it was the commandments, whether it was the priestly service, whether it was the layout of the tabernacle, it's all — it's all put in place as a manifestation of the righteousness of God, what God is trying to give us and show us.

Now the author is gonna point out two aspects of the parable of the tabernacle that do exactly that.

Two aspects of the tabernacle parable we need to focus on.

The first one is the layout.

What the scripture calls — what the writer calls the outer tabernacle and it was called the holy.

And I know most of you understand that in that part of the tabernacle, the minute you walked in on your left was the golden seven-branched menorah and on your right would be the table, the golden table of showbread.

Now notice he only identifies what is in the holy — he not only identifies what's in the holy place, but that he takes time to tell us the name of that place.

I mean, who cares?

I mean, it's the tabernacle, right?

I mean, if it's the tabernacle, it's all holy.

Why stress that it's the holy place?

Well, it's gonna help kind of designate and delineate it — the difference between it and the other place, the other part of the tabernacle.

So why does he do this?

Because he's trying to get us to take note of two things.

One that it had a designation and the designation that distinguishes it from the holy of holies matters.

Here's what matters.

There's two parts to the whole.

Now that's gonna be very, very significant because I want you to think in terms of the terminology that the writer of Hebrews is using consistently moving from first to — come on, church, talk to me — second, from first to second.

That terminology — so he's gonna make sure you understand there is the first and there is the second.

In fact, the English translators are gonna kind of mess us up a little bit because the actual Greek text is going to call it the first and the English translators are gonna come along and go, "Oh, he's talking about the outer, so let's change the name."

Now they're not wrong, but they disconnect the flow of the author's thought from first to second.

Secondly, notice that while it has a name which designates it, its name connects to the second part.

I mean, honestly, if you really wanted to differentiate things and really disconnect them, you wouldn't call the first part the holy and then name the second part the holy because it's really just holy holies.

And I'm like, "Holy moly."

I mean, if you really want to make a difference, shouldn't you change the name?

No, because they're both holy, but you move from the first to the second.

That is a pattern established in the layout of the tabernacle.

I want you to hold on to that because that paradigm is gonna matter as we go through this.

He then reminds the reader of what furnishings were in that part of the tabernacle that are behind the veil called the holy of holies.

The golden altar of incense and the Ark of the Covenant, and inside the Ark of the Covenant, you had the golden jar of Mamanna, Aaron's rod that budded, and the tablets of the covenant.

Now, this tells us right away that the writer of Hebrews is not thinking about the temple that existed during the days of Jesus.

How do we know that?

Because not only was there no jar of Mamanna in the Ark of the Covenant, not only was there no rod of Aaron in the Ark of the Covenant, there was no Ark of the Covenant.

Come on.

So if he's gonna call these things to mind, he is calling it to mind at a time when all of those existed, which was the tabernacle.

Now I say that because everybody tries to use these things to, "What was he talking about to date?

Was the temple still standing when he wrote this?

Is this to help prepare them or is it after the fact to help them?"

It's neither of those.

He's calling to mind the original pattern.

That's all he's doing.

You heard it here first.

All right.

Kind of sounded all kind of bossy about that, didn't I?

Oh well, everybody else does too.

So the author is reminding them of the original tabernacle.

Now there's actually three parts that are in there.

There is the altar of incense, the Ark of the Covenant, but the Ark of the Covenant also has another piece to it.

The propitiation or the mercy seat that sits on top.

When you think of the Ark of the Covenant, I know that we see the picture as one and it is, but it's actually one thing that has two parts to it.

Now verse five, the author admits, as I already said that, he's got a timetable like we do, so I'll move on.

So then let's look at the liturgy.

And by the way, I know some of you are thinking, "Well, isn't he going to deal with the author's mistake?"

I'll get there.

Settle yourself.

I'll get there.

Verses six through ten, we've got the layout, first and second, two parts.

Now let's look at the liturgy.

Now when these things have been so prepared, the priest are continually entering the outer tabernacle, performing the divine worship, but in the second, only the first enters once a year, not without taking blood, which he offers for himself and for the sins of the people committed in ignorance.

The Holy Spirit is signifying by this that the way into the holy place has not yet been disclosed while the outer tabernacle is still standing, which is a parable for the present time.

Accordingly, both gifts and sacrifices are offered, which cannot make the worshiper perfect in conscience since they are about food and drink and various washings, regulations for the body imposed until a time of reforation.

Now let's make a quick clarification.

Look at verse four.

Verse four seems to take the altar of incense, which is in the holy place, the first, and put it behind the veil in the second place, the holy of holies.

You see that?

And all God's people said, "That ain't right."

And this is where the critics of the book of Hebrews love to jump on and attack.

If they want to attack the English, they're welcome to.

If you want to attack the Greek, you have no leg to stand on.

And here's why.

The word is not the altar of incense.

The word is the golden sensor, the tool, the shovel into which coals from the altar and the incense would be taken past the veil into the holy of holies and placed before the ark of the covenant and the steam and the smoke would create a protective veil between the presence of God and the high priest rendering his service.

It was a means for them to enter the holy of holies and be safe in the presence of God.

Now, if you read it as if the altar of incense and the holy, the ark of the covenant are together, that's not entirely wrong because that's even the way the sages of Israel teach it.

That it's placement right in front of the ark of the covenant, even though it's on the outside of the veil, creates a relationship between those two.

When do we see that relationship manifested?

One day, Yom Kippur, the day of atonement, the ministry of the high priest.

Has the writer of Hebrews made a mistake?

No.

Have the English translators made a mistake?

Yes.

So what?

At the end of this, you are still going to get the point.

All right?

Now, it bothers me that they do that, but I've said worse.

All right?

By the way, if that's such a huge thing for you, please go tear out the book of Ezekiel from your Bible.

Ezekiel chapter 40, well the writer of Hebrews, he doesn't know what he's talking about.

You know why?

Go look at it.

Ezekiel 40 verse one, where the writer of Hebrews says, "Rosh Hashanah, the head of the year, starts on the 10th day of the month of Tishri."

Now you are a Hebrew passionate congregation.

How many of you can say, "That ain't right."

You're smart enough to not say it.

Because it is right.

Once every 50 years in a Jubilee year, the new year does not begin on the first of Tishri, it begins on the 10th of Tishri on the day of Yom Kippur.

Was Ezekiel wrong?

No.

He was spot on because he was talking about a Jubilee year.

You see, when people start criticizing the Bible, well I'll come back to that later.

This is going to surprise you, I kind of appreciate it, and I'll explain that later here in a minute.

The focus here is Yom Kippur, just like it is in Ezekiel chapter 40.

So let's go back to this inspired parable of the tabernacle.

The priest constantly entered the first, not the outer tabernacle.

The Bible says the outer tabernacle, but it actually says first.

So what is all this about?

It speaks to the very point that he is making about chronology of the first leading to the second, meaning one thing follows after another, and the tabernacle was a parable about time, about how God had a plan to move from one thing to the other, from the first to the second.

Are you with me?

That's the methodology that he's going to use and pull out of this story.

If there's a first, there has to be, by design, a second.

But the second is not unlike the first, so it is to be unrecognizable.

So what does the author emphasize in the liturgy part of the parable, the priestly ministry?

And that is that there is a time to enter the first, as there is a time to enter the first, there is a time to enter the second.

He doesn't leave us wondering what God is telling us about this.

He tells us.

The Holy Spirit, verse eight, is signifying, is demonstrating that this is the way into the holy place has not yet been disclosed while the outer tabernacle is still standing.

What he's saying is the tabernacle is telling you a story.

It's a parable.

And it's telling you that how we move from the first to the second, all of us, not just the high priest.

We sang about entering his presence.

That that path is yet to come.

That that's what the tabernacle was telling us.

Now he stresses that the reason we know this is because the first could only temporarily deal with the uncleanliness of our flesh and flesh.

That a more permanent forever solution was needed.

Look at verse nine.

He continues to emphasize his point that the tabernacle layout and liturgy both tell the same story.

The ministry of the first could not bring about telos, notice what he says, or the perfection of the worshiper.

What's Brent's favorite Greek word?

Telos.

Well, I just told you, telos.

Man, that joke is never going to get old for me.

May wear you slick, but it's not, it's never going to get old for me.

That the first, the first is telling us a story that it cannot perfect us to go into the second.

Now jump back to verse seven, two very important points.

Primary points.

He says the first, the high priest enters, but not without blood.

I want everybody to say that, but not without blood.

Say it one more time, but not without blood.

That's his point.

All right.

He has a second point.

He talks about the sins that were committed in ignorance.

Well here goes that poor dumb writer of Hebrews.

He apparently never read Leviticus 16, 16.

Because Leviticus 16, 16 clearly says that the ministry and the liturgy of Yom Kippur forgives all sins, not just sins committed in ignorance.

Now the author is stressing the inability of the first to fully cleanse the conscience of the worshiper.

And yet he shares two points on this.

The first is sacrifice for unknown sin did three, there's three things I want you to get out of this.

There are the sacrifices for unknown sin did three things.

And many of the sacrifices that were brought to the altar, to the temple for sin were about sins committed in ignorance.

Why would they do that?

One, it exposed the real heart of the worshiper.

Wow, that almost sounds like a parable.

How did it expose the real heart of the worshiper?

Because only the person who really wanted to press into the presence of God so much that they would be concerned about their uncleanliness, they would be so concerned not just about the sin they knew they committed, but even the sins they haven't committed, the uncleanliness they might have incurred, only a person that passionate would truly want to offer those sacrifices and press in to see God.

Those sins, those offerings for the sins of ignorance showed whether or not you were a person who was just pulling, "Oh, well, yeah, I really did that.

I knew I was going to do it.

Don't worry, I'll just go offer a sacrifice."

That's not the heart God's looking for.

God is looking for a heart of a worshiper who so wants to be in the presence of God that quite honestly their conscience is afflicted because they know no matter what they do, no matter how hard they try, there is always the potential of an unconfessed sin, of an unknown sin, of an unknown uncleanliness.

And their conscience can't find peace.

Second thing, it exemplifies genuine humility.

You know, I know a lot of people who will say, "I'm not apologizing for that.

I didn't do it."

Thank God Daniel didn't have that attitude.

Remember Daniel's prayer of repentance?

He's confessing the sins of his fathers.

Yeah, I could go off on topics, I'll leave them alone.

Let's just leave it at this.

If you think the only thing you have going against you are the sins that you intentionally committed, you're in big trouble.

Because I get so caught up in doing things my own way and thinking things, you know, making me, I don't even realize how selfish I'm being.

Anybody out there understand that?

Can you relate to that?

I mean, let's face it, I know, I mean, I know when I sin because I enjoy the things I intentionally do.

Come on.

But do I love God enough to care about the things I don't know that I'm doing?

Or that I get so blinded and caught up in myself that I become unaware that I'm doing?

Those sacrifices for unknown sin expose the real heart of the worshiper.

It exemplifies genuine humility.

It also expresses faith in God's heart to forgive.

Because you have to go to God and go, "Lord, I can't actually tell you exactly what I did wrong, but I know I'm a sinner and I've fallen short of your glory."

But you do that knowing that the heart of the Father loves you enough to forgive you.

Otherwise, there's no point in even offering the sacrifice.

I feel like I just, there's background, all right.

You see, like a parable, the tabernacle revealed who was really seeking to hear and press into the presence of God.

The second thing the tabernacle did was expose its own inability to cleanse a worshiper at their deepest level of need.

A perpetually clean conscience before God.

I could express my sorrow for sin, I could do all those things, I could do all the offerings to things that have rendered me impure and unclean to come in His presence, but that conscience, that awareness of sin is going to be there.

Notice it is the Holy Spirit that is teaching these things.

And He is pointing to the coming time when the second will do what the first could not.

How many of you would like a clean conscience before God?

How many want to lay your head down at night and not, I mean, I know there's people in the body of Christ whose parents go to bed fretting over whether or not their children forget to confess all their sins and might die in the night.

Really?

That's the heart of God?

It goes directly to this issue.

Now do you understand why the tabernacle is a parable?

Because it's a story we need to understand.

Let me just sidebar for a minute.

You know, I've identified this book as a midrash.

A commentary on things used, that uses comparison and contrast to explain and apply a biblical truth.

It's an extremely, it's extremely Jewish in its methodology.

Let me just tell you, if you ever go to a, and get a book of Jewish midrash, let me tell you what you're going to find in those commentaries as they seek to explain the Torah and the prophets.

You're going to read Mashleim, parables.

I mean, I'm just geeking out about how Hebrew this book really is.

Not only is it a midrash, it is following the exact pattern of a midrash and it is using the story of parables to explain and apply scriptural truths.

Are we listening to the story?

So what is he comparing?

The first and the second and every part about it.

The covenant, the tabernacle, the priesthood, all of it.

And so now, we come to the juxtaposition.

Another Jewish method.

Follow along verse 11.

"But when Messiah appeared as high priest of the good things to come, he entered through the greater and more perfect tabernacle not made with hands, that is to say, not of this creation and not through the blood of goats and calves, but through his own blood.

He entered the holy place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption.

For if the blood of bulls and goats and the ashes of a heifer sprinkling those who have been defiled sanctify for the cleansing of the flesh, how much more will the blood of Christ who is through the eternal spirit offered himself without blemish to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?"

I mean, how many times have you heard the phrase, "But God?"

The writer says, "But Messiah, but Christ."

What did he do?

He entered the greater, more perfect tabernacle, not made with human hands, but made by God.

He offered a greater sacrifice and gift of his own life and blood.

Then we come to verse 13 and 14, and he does a "Kalver Homer," a "how much more" comment.

And he says, "If the blood of bulls and goats," which by the way, again, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, Yom Kippur terminology.

Bulls were offered on behalf of the high priest.

Two goats were brought for the sake of the people.

The very terminology points us to the high priestly ministry of Jesus.

And he says, "How much more will his sacrifice bring about the cleansing of our conscience where peace is most needed?"

In verse 15, it serves as a good bridge to the second parable, which we're going to look at now.

It's called the parable of the testament.

Let me read verse 15.

"For this reason, he is the mediator of a new covenant, so that since a death has taken place for the redemption of the transgression that were committed under the first covenant, those who have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance."

Notice that the author emphasizes two things.

A death has taken place for the redemption of sinners, and this was done so they might receive God's inheritance.

So let's look at this parable of the testament, and this is where things get dicey.

They shouldn't, but they do.

You're going to have to think a little bit with me this morning as I read this parable, because this is the place where anti-missionaries, apostates, and people who have become antagonistic towards the book of Hebrews find fault again with the word.

But where they see ignorance, I see inspiration.

Let me show it to you.

Verse 16.

"For where a covenant is, there must of necessity be the death of the one who made it.

For a covenant is valid only when men are dead, for it is never enforced while the one who made it lives.

Therefore, even the first," it doesn't say covenant, "even the first was not inaugurated without blood."

So here's the accusation, that the writer of Hebrews doesn't know the difference between a covenant and a last will and testament.

Let's remember the bridge point the author has already made about the first and the second.

Both came by means of a death, and that's the point of comparison he is going to use.

Now there are, well let me just say this, it's true whether you are speaking about an ancient near eastern covenant and the establishment ceremony, or the inauguration or establishment of the terms of a last will and testament.

So here's the controversy.

Is he talking about a covenant, ancient near east context, passing through the parts, or has he shifted his explanation to bring in another aspect of the word covenant, which is a testament as in a last will and testament.

So I'm going to kind of lay out both positions and tell you where I come down on this.

The first one is that what the author is really doing here, if you understand the terminology and the people who present this, and it's a very scholarly position, I have no problem with it, say that the ancient practice of a covenant being established when the party making the covenant passed between the parts of the animal that had been sacrificed, they were thus invoking their own life and connecting it to the covenant.

Which they were basically saying, by my life and my death, I confirm and establish this covenant.

Well that will preach all day.

Did I just do that?

I did.

All right.

Hey, I've been sick, leave me alone.

All right.

Hey, that will preach all day.

And by the way, if you would like a good scholarly explanation of that position, I would recommend Tim Hague's commentary on the book of Hebrews.

Because basically it's like saying, as I pass through these parts, I swear on my life.

So Tim Hague kind of champions this position.

He sees it as being most consistent with the Hebrew writers, the continuing context of the tabernacle and the sacrificial context.

But our English translations really read more like testament.

Don't be too fast to throw that out.

Let me show you why.

Verse 15 introduces the topic of inheritance as being the primary purpose of the covenant.

Meaning, when we come to telos, we have come to the place where God has perfected us.

He has ministered to us and now we can receive the inheritance.

Paul talks about our salvation in the context of inheritance perpetually.

So casting aside terminology that would make us think about that, don't be too fast.

Now another aspect of this, a second reason why testament may in fact be what he has in mind is that the Greek word deotheke is the word for both covenant and testament.

Well that's just confusing.

I mean, if you're going to designate and delineate, you ought to use a different word.

Holy, holy holies.

Come on, let it think, let it seep in there.

Why couldn't we have called it the sacred and the holy?

I don't know, but the same word describes both.

Is the writer of Hebrews ignorant or is he inspired?

Think about the parable of the tabernacle, one structure with two parts which is a primary emphasis on how he's making his point.

Is it possible that he's doing the same thing with the beautiful words of Japheth, remember the Greek language, because he knows deotheke is just as legitimately translated as covenant as it is testament.

Is it possible that both streams arrive at the same river?

Come on, doesn't that make more sense than just assuming that he's wrong?

Now the first depends on people knowing or remembering the ancient rites of covenant making, a knowledge that quite honestly would not necessarily have been known by later generations or non-ancient eastern generations.

I mean, we are kind of a Torah passionate people and we have gone through the Torah and so we have studied the covenant of parts.

Now don't kid yourself, Christians do the same, I mean, the mainline body of Christ does the same thing, but if you go into any average Sunday school class, it's not going to be the first thing that jumps to their mind, all right?

It's a very technical, ancient thing.

But the second definition as a testament is the oldest perpetual understanding of every human culture since creation, that the father passes his possessions on to his son, inheritance transcends time, culture, and ethnicity.

And maybe the Holy Spirit understood that there would come a time and a generation of people of culture and ethnicity that wouldn't necessarily understand the ancient rite of passing through the parts, but they would very easily understand a testament.

How a father passes on the inheritance and it doesn't happen until there's a death.

By the way, the common thread in all three parables we're looking at today, something has to die to move from first to second.

And this is why either of these options are fully acceptable.

In fact, when you look at the fact that there are two potential options, you don't see ignorance, you see divine inspiration.

You see the fact that he could make this case that would resonate with the Hebrews in one context and would resonate with generations to come without that context.

Don't talk to me about how God doesn't know how to write a book.

You're not, he's not ignorant, you are.

Come on, I want to fight.

You want to see ignorance, I want to celebrate inspiration.

Why?

Because I trust him.

I don't believe he allowed a book to remain in the canon of scripture for 1700, 1800 years to deceive us.

Everything he has done, he has done to factor in the story so that we will get it right.

I don't think he abandoned us in this moment.

Whether it's a covenant or a testament, both require a death.

Let's finish this parable.

Verse 19, "When every commandment had been spoken by Moses to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of the calves and the goats and the water and the scarlet wool and hyssop and sprinkled both the book itself, the covenant, and all the people saying this is the blood of the covenant which God commanded you."

The covenant was established with the shedding of blood, with the shedding and the cleansing of blood.

Do you see that?

Even the book of the covenant, the words of the covenant were sanctified with blood.

The articles in the tabernacle were sanctified and cleansed with the shedding of blood.

Now let's look at the liturgy of this parable, verse 21, "And in the same way, he sprinkled both the tabernacle and all the vessels of the ministry with the blood.

And according to the law, one may almost say all things are cleansed with blood and without the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness.

Therefore it was necessary for the copies of the things in the heavens to be cleansed with these."

I told you I was going to tell you why I love the critics, because they make me go deeper.

I wish there weren't anti-missionaries, but every time they bring up a topic and say, "This proves Jesus isn't the Messiah."

Let me tell you something, wherever Satan is pointing is where you ought to look.

When they're sitting there trying to tell you, "Well, this isn't the word of God," you go study it.

Let me tell you, you're going to find more inspiration.

When the critics say, "Oh, that whole virgin birth thing falls apart."

Thank you very much for criticizing that point.

I went and studied it and now I'm more of a believer than I was before, because that's the power of the word of God.

And it forces you to go deeper.

The writer makes the point that just as the first was inaugurated with the death and the shedding of blood, so also all things are cleansed by that act as well.

The covenant was established with the shedding of blood, meaning death.

The cleansing is accomplished with the shedding of blood, meaning death.

He then draws the parallel so that complete cleansing, meaning all things are cleansed in a manner that points to how God forgives us.

So how are we to understand this verse 22 that the anti-missionaries especially love to criticize?

"For without the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness of sins."

And what do you think the anti-missionary's immediate response is?

What about David?

The Bible doesn't say David went and offered all kinds of sacrifices.

He just cried out to God and God loved him and forgave him.

Yep.

Thank you for that point.

Because the anti-missionaries love this because they think it stands in contradiction to what they've seen in the Torah, when in fact it is in perfect harmony with what is revealed in the Torah.

They like to make the accusation that this verse makes it sound like Christianity is a religion that presents God as God demanding death and He will only forgive if someone bleeds and dies.

But that view robs God of His grace and His mercy.

It demeans His character and heart for His children and frames Him as an angry God.

Nice try, that's not what Christianity teaches.

And if you were ever in a Christian environment where that was taught, I'm sorry you had a bad experience, but the vast majority from Catholicism on down do not teach that God was an angry God who didn't have a heart of love for people and the only reason He would forgive is not because He loved you, but because you satisfied a legalistic ritual.

We don't teach that, we've never taught that.

And you can accuse us of teaching that all you want, it doesn't make it so.

So what is the Holy Spirit?

Oh and by the way, we didn't invent the tabernacle, the sacrifices, the covenants and the priesthood.

Come on.

We didn't write the stories about passing through the shed blood of the sacrifice.

So what is the Holy Spirit saying to us through the Hebrew writer?

That just as all things are inaugurated and cleansed with blood, so all sins are forgiven in the same way.

We are talking about atonement that is accomplished by the high priest on the day of atonement service.

We're not saying our God doesn't love us and have a heart to forgive us, we're saying God has a method to not only satisfy the legal debt that is incurred when we sin, but He also is revealing His heart to take our sin from us.

He loves us.

Our writer is Jewish, he's a Hebrew.

So what does he do?

He juxtaposes two things, which is exactly what he's doing here.

And if you don't pay attention to what is being juxtaposed, you come up with a ludicrous interpretation.

The cleansing of the holy vessels and the cleansing of the people, the cleansing of the covenant, called to be holy, who need a complete cleansing, not just of the flesh, but of the conscience as well, needs a greater covenant.

A greater priesthood.

A greater sacrifice that will forgive all their sins.

So how does God demonstrate forgiveness?

This is a mind bomb right here.

When we sinned in Eden, what did God do?

He sent us away from His presence.

Guys, follow this story, this is really cool.

When we sinned, we got sent away from His presence.

When God wanted to draw us back to Himself, what did He do?

He sent His Son away from His presence to redeem us so we could come home.

That's the story.

Do you realize that even the story of the Son leaving the Father to bring the inheritance, to rescue and redeem the children of Israel, it's a picture that in and of itself is a picture of forgiveness.

It is the opposite of being, it's being sent away.

We were sent away because of sin.

He came, He was sent away to buy us back because of our sin.

He sent the one to redeem us because we had been sent away because of sin.

How does He do that?

He satisfies the requirements of forgiveness.

There are two Greek words in the Bible in the New Testament that are translated as forgiveness.

One of them has to do with the cancellation of debt.

That is exactly what we incur when we break the law, when we sin.

We have a debt that needs to be paid.

But it also, there's another word, and it's the word that He's using here, it's the word "ephemi."

And it has a shared root with words like "apostle" and "apostasy."

What's the commonality?

It means to be sent away.

That's the definition of forgiveness.

Think about the Day of Atonement service.

One for Adonai, one for Azazel.

The one for Azazel, the hand of the high priest are laid on his head and all the sins are confessed and what do they do with that goat?

It's sent away.

That's forgiveness.

How can we not see the Day of Atonement?

The forgiveness the writer of Hebrews is referring to is the atonement of our sins and they're being sent away.

He sent them away having cleansed all of our sins.

How does it happen?

By the one whom God sent.

What did Jesus say?

This is the work of God, to believe in the one whom He sent.

For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him.

Guys, this is the parable of the Testament.

The Son was sent to save our inheritance by sending away that which separated us from God.

Now, if it's a Testament, if that's what the writer of Hebrews has in mind, how powerfully does Jesus fulfill this picture?

Because he says he becomes the mediator of a new covenant.

What if it's the mediator of a new Testament?

As such, Jesus is the testator.

He's the one who records the will.

He's the one who establishes the Testament.

But how can he be the executor?

You know, the guy that makes sure that after you die, everybody gets what they're supposed to get.

How is it that Jesus can be the testator and the executor?

Oh, just a little thing called the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

That he died?

Yep, and yet he lived.

The last parable is the parable of the human tent.

If the tabernacle told a story, if the earthly tent of that time told a story, then folks, listen to me, this tent tells a story as well.

Verse 24, "For Christ did not enter a holy place made with hands, a copy of the true one, but in the heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us.

Nor was it that he would offer himself often as the high priest enters the holy place, year by year, with blood that is not his own.

Otherwise he would not have needed to suffer often since the foundation of the world.

And now, once at the consummation of the ages, he has been manifested to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself."

Not to send us away, to send it away from us.

And listen to this final parable.

"And inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once, and after this comes judgment, so Christ also, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time for salvation without reference to sin to those who eagerly await him."

Was the tabernacle a parable?

It was an earthly tent that told a heavenly story.

The priesthood, the liturgy, the furnishings.

Melchizedek, he factored everything into this story and says that they bear an image of the heavenly.

The Bible says that you and I were created in the image of God.

Same word, shadow image.

That you and I were created to tell a story.

And the writer of Hebrews says if you look at the chronology of your life, there's a first and there's a second.

You live, and how do you transfer to the next part?

You die.

There's only one generation that won't know that transition, but for everybody until that time comes, you live as a reflection of his life, as a reflection of his goodness, as a part of his story, waiting for the first to move to the second.

For after we die, then we come into the presence of God.

And we either do so to receive judgment or our inheritance.

And it depends on what you've done with the story of Christ.

It depends on whether or not you have really listened to the one who was sent by God.

But he didn't come as a shadow of God.

He didn't come in the image of God.

He was Emmanuel, God with us.

Tabernacle.

Everything from creation, the tabernacle, the priesthood, it's all about his story.

I guess that's why we call it history.

We're going to sing, and we're going to go into a time of response.

That's just not a time to sing.

It's a time for you to consider what are you going to do with what you've heard.

If creation was a parable and a story, if the tabernacle was a parable and a story, if your life is a parable, it's a story of redemption.

I'm asking you today as we go into this time of response, when you leave this place, what is your story going to tell out there?

Because somebody needs your story.

Some people saw Jesus in the tabernacle.

Some people see him in ...

God has all sorts of stories.

There's a bunch of them in here today.

I want to ask you, are you just going to argue about the semantics of the story?

Are you going to commit right now?

Because I'm looking for a genuine response.

In fact, I'm going to do this.

If as we sing, while we sing, it is your heart, you just want to say to God, "God, when I leave this place, my story becomes his story.

And God, I actually want to see that played out this week.

I want you to use my life, my story, my experiences for your glory."

Now, you don't all have to come.

This isn't a cattle call.

But the ones who are saying, "You know what, Brent?

I'm going to kind of commit to that this week.

I'm going to press in and say, 'Well, God, what is my story?'"

Come, because when we're done singing, I want to pray with you.

Let's worship. (gentle music) (gentle music)