5.4.26 – Cleansing Sacred Spaces, Part 1

Over the past four weeks of counting the Omer (welcome, Day 30), we have expanded the biblical definition of grace (chen), recognized that God takes pride in His obedient children, understood that salvation is more than asking "Jesus" into your heart, and seen that the blood is definitely a broader topic than the majority of people think.

On this 30th day of counting the Omer, I want to state that Yom Kippur has a limit. The chatat (sin offering) has a limit. If Yom Kippur (Day of Coverings) could handle everything—if the blood of goats could handle the deep clean, if that could take care of everything, absorb all this rebellion, and keep functioning forever—then we must ask one simple question: "Why did Israel go into exile?" Why would they be eradicated from the land? Why would they be vomited out of the land? If there is a total fix, where is it?

This material is going to be very heavy, and the danger of heavy material is easily getting lost along the way. You might forget the ultimate goal and settle into the minutiae, losing sight of your purpose or telos. So let me remind you: what is the purpose of these forty-nine days? Some people hear a critique of the idea of Penal Substitutionary Atonement (PSA) and say, "Well, that is a very limited branch—a very limited idea within Protestant theology." It is not universal.

Though it is not a big deal, the issue is whether the assumptions backing the idea have shaped how most people think. It is a little bit like replacement theology. You talk a lot about replacement theology, and if you talk to the average person in church, they will say, "I do not believe any of that. I do not believe that God has replaced Israel." Many people reject it, yet teachers often embed the categories so deeply that readers do not even recognize they are reading the Bible from a replacement theology perspective. And because assumptions about sacrifice, the death of Jesus, and the need for blood to satisfy the wrath of an angry God often guide the way people read not only the sacrificial system but also the sacrifice of Jesus—even when they might never call it something like Penal Substitutionary Atonement.

In the Torah, atonement does not necessarily mean forgiveness, reconciliation, or salvation. It primarily means purging and decontamination. It is about removing the forces of death from sacred places so that the living God can continue to dwell among His people. Within this topic, there are two kinds of impurity: moral and ritual. Ritual impurity is the natural result of human finitude: emissions, childbirth, tzara'at, and contact with a corpse. None of these categories of ritual impurity constitute sin. It is the result of being human in the presence of God, who is infinite life. Moral impurity, on the other hand, is very different—idolatry, sexual immorality, bloodshed, covenant rebellion, and more are just a few examples.

We have already learned that when the Torah says atonement has been made, the sacrifices purge the sanctuary, the holy objects, and the sacred space itself—not the people. The direct object of atonement is the sanctuary. The person is the beneficiary, not the target. Sacred space becomes decontaminated on your behalf, so that God's presence will continue to dwell among you—so that the relationship is not ruptured by the accumulating weight of our human finitude and our ritual impurity pressing against that divine presence. That is heavy stuff! You may want to read that again :-).

What is in the blood that makes it effective? How does Yom Kippur work? What is the failsafe of Yom Kippur? And what happens when the Yom Kippur failsafe fails? Part of the issue lies in the nomenclature—calling the chatat a "sin offering" is not the best term. English Bibles often use that term, and it has done enormous damage to people's understanding of the system. Because the moment you call something a sin offering, the logical assumption for everyone is that it has something to do with sin, right? Thanks, Mr. Obvious.

The chatat is a purification offering; it removes and purges. And here is something that we discussed last week, which is the immediate tip-off that it is not removing something from the person who brings it. It is not taking away their sin. The person bringing a chatat offering does not bring it while in an impaired condition. Huh? Can you say that again? Before they bring their chatat offering, the condition has already ended. That already indicates the offering does not remove impurity from the individual. Let me explain using a previous example: in Leviticus 14, the person with biblical leprosy does not walk into the sanctuary with their offering until the condition has been cleared. That would further contaminate the sacred space. If they bring an offering while in this unclean condition, it is illogical. So, for the leper, there is a process. After completing a cleansing process, these people can enter the sacred space and bring an offering. The same thing applies to the new mother in Leviticus. When the days of purification have ended, she brings a lamb for a burnt offering and a bird for a purification offering. Her days are completed. And you ask why? If the condition is already resolved, why do they need to bring anything anywhere? Why do they need to bring a sacrifice? Because their offering is not fixing them! Got it? Clear as muddy water? Good. Let me drive it a little harder: the offering is dealing with what the impurity did to the holy sacred space, even from far, far away. During the entire time they are impure, that contamination is reaching sacred space.

We will clear the muddy waters more tomorrow :-)

Shalom,
Alan