# Leviticus 16:30-34...Does "all" mean all?



## smhbbag (May 14, 2007)

Leviticus 16:30-34:



> For on that day shall [the priest] make an atonement for you, to cleanse you, [that] ye may be clean from all your sins before the LORD.
> t [shall be] a sabbath of rest unto you, and ye shall afflict your souls, by a statute for ever.
> And the priest, whom he shall anoint, and whom he shall consecrate to minister in the priest's office in his father's stead, shall make the atonement, and shall put on the linen clothes, [even] the holy garments:*And he shall make an atonement for the holy sanctuary, and he shall make an atonement for the tabernacle of the congregation, and for the altar, and he shall make an atonement for the priests, and for all the people of the congregation.*
> And this shall be an everlasting statute unto you, to make an atonement for the children of Israel for all their sins once a year. And he did as the LORD commanded Moses.



Did all covenant members, without exception, have this sacrifice offered on their behalf by the priesthood?


----------



## Herald (May 14, 2007)

> (from Matthew Henry) I. We have here some additional directions in reference to this great solemnity, particularly,
> 
> 1. The day appointed for this solemnity. It must be observed yearly on the tenth day of the seventh month, v. 29. The seventh had been reckoned the first month, till God appointed that the month in which the children of Israel came out of Egypt should thenceforward be accounted and called the first month. Some have fancied that this tenth day of the seventh month was the day of the year on which our first parents fell, and that it was kept as a fast in remembrance of their fall. Dr. Lightfoot computes that this was the day on which Moses came the last time down from the mount, when he brought with him the renewed tables, and the assurances of God's being reconciled to Israel, and his face shone: that day must be a day of atonement throughout their generations; for the remembrance of God's forgiving them their sin about the golden calf might encourage them to hope that, upon their repentance, he would forgive them all trespasses.
> 
> ...



Sorry about the lengthy quote from Henry, but I believe he gets is right. We cannot look at the atoning work of the priestly sacrifice apart from the gospel. No sacrifice can forgive sin in the absence of repentance and faith. This applied even during the time of the Levitical priesthood.


----------



## smhbbag (May 14, 2007)

> We cannot look at the atoning work of the priestly sacrifice apart from the gospel. No sacrifice can forgive sin in the absence of repentance and faith. This applied even during the time of the Levitical priesthood.



Certainly. Thanks for the long citation. It's amazing when purely doctrinal exposition becomes almost devotional just because it's well-written.

And by:



> And observe what the extent of the atonement was which the high priest made: it was for the holy sanctuary, for the tabernacle, for the altar, for the priests, and for all the people



Evidently his answer was 'yes' - all OC members had this sacrifice made on their behalf.

Anyone disagree?


----------



## A5pointer (May 14, 2007)

The priest was acting as federal head representing the covenant community. The atonement was for all Israel as they dwelt in the land with God. It was covenant keeping.


----------



## Herald (May 14, 2007)

Look closely at what Henry said.



> Here are likewise typified the two great gospel duties of faith and repentance, by which we are qualified for the atonement, and come to be entitled to the benefit of it.



The atoning power of the blood sacrifices was in the promise of the gospel. The realization of the atonement was in what Henry calls, "the two great gospel duties of faith and repentance."

So even though the sacrifice was made for all it was dependent on faith and repentance.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (May 14, 2007)

You can't just make the Israelites into crypto-romanists. The actions of the priests didn't just "work" and *BAM!* sins of everybody atoned for.

How convenient.

No, the efficacy of any (authorized) ritual or behavior whatsoever is only to the degree it is mixed with faith. True today or yesterday.


----------



## smhbbag (May 14, 2007)

> You can't just make the Israelites into crypto-romanists. The actions of the priests didn't just "work" and *BAM!* sins of everybody atoned for.
> 
> How convenient.
> 
> No, the efficacy of any (authorized) ritual or behavior whatsoever is only to the degree it is mixed with faith. True today or yesterday.



Where is all this coming from?

I agree with both of you whole-heartedly, as does anyone who truly knows the gospel.


----------



## Archlute (May 14, 2007)

Contra_Mundum said:


> You can't just make the Israelites into crypto-romanists. The actions of the priests didn't just "work" and *BAM!* sins of everybody atoned for.
> 
> How convenient.
> 
> No, the efficacy of any (authorized) ritual or behavior whatsoever is only to the degree it is mixed with faith. True today or yesterday.



The sanctuary, tabernacle, and the altar didn't have faith. Does that mean that they were not atoned for?  Of course, they did not have any sin either.

I am not contesting that repentance and faith are required for salvation, but I do not think that we should automatically read systematic soteriological categories back into an OT situation. While it is obvious that there was some element of sin and its expiation involved with the people, I think that we must say there was more to it than that, due to the inclusion of these other objects. 

We cannot just focus on the people, and forget the other things mentioned in these passages, as they have significance as well. What we could ask is, granted that the efficacy of the atonement was "ex opere operato" for the inanimate items, were there two differing types of atonement occurring here, and, if not, was the atonement for the people in this passage of a different type than that of which we are assuming? I have no quick answers here for you all, just raising some other lines of thought to spur on conversation (and I didn't want the tabernacle to feel left out).


----------



## smhbbag (May 14, 2007)

> was the atonement for the people in this passage of a different type than that of which we are assuming?



I tend to think it is different. Atonement, in my mind, in this passage is more related to holding back God's temporal wrath on a nation, than His eternal wrath on an individual.

If priests were faithful in sacrificing on behalf of their people - national Israel was protected from its enemies on earth. As far as I know, every time national Israel was not protected, its priesthood had been corrupted. This is the type of 'atonement' I believe it promises. And as such, is certainly a small type/shadow of the federal headship and sacrifice of Christ for His.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (May 14, 2007)

smhbbag said:


> Where is all this coming from?
> 
> I agree with both of you whole-heartedly, as does anyone who truly knows the gospel.



Ok, I think I missed the direction of the thread or something.

The atonement was for the people as a church, general not specific, corporate not individual. The ones who truly benefitted were those who had saving faith. The nation benefitted outwardly for the sake of those. There was a day that came, however, in Jeremiah's day when not all the outward piety or ritual conformity would avail the nation. They could do it all, offer the right sacrifices, but it was not going to atone (see Jeremiah 7).


----------



## smhbbag (May 14, 2007)

> The atonement was for the people as a church, general not specific, corporate not individual. The ones who truly benefitted were those who had saving faith. The nation benefitted outwardly for the sake of those. There was a day that came, however, in Jeremiah's day when not all the outward piety or ritual conformity would avail the nation. They could do it all, offer the right sacrifices, but it was not going to atone (see. Jer. 7).



That is naturally the way I would take it, also.

But the text seems to make a distinction between a sacrifice for the 'house' of Israel as a whole, in corporate terms, and what we find in this part "ALL the people of the congregation." 

It seems intent on getting across - 'every individual without exception has this done on their behalf.'

The two parts may not exclude each other. But is the second true? Granted, there's a corporate aspect, but was there any individual for whom the priest did not intend to offer sacrifice? Was the priest's intent for every person?


----------



## Contra_Mundum (May 14, 2007)

1) I don't think there's any difference over who is being referred to between "house of Israel" and "all the people of the congregation." Two ways of describing essentially the same group; maybe saying something different about the group but still the same group.

2) It's not the case that what may be predicated of a whole, is likewise true for all of its parts considered individually. Two examples: a) If I say "my car is red" that may be a true statement. But if I then say "my tire is red because my car is red and its part of my car," that is not true. b) The puzzle presents a picture of a car, in a rectangle. But each puzzle piece does not present a picture of the car, nor is a single piece a rectangle.

3) I don't believe the priest thought: "There's someone out there for which this is not atoning." Because he's looking at the people as one. But just for that same reason, I don't believe he thought "I'm doing this for EACH/EVERY individual." He was acting federally (as one wrote above). The whole matter of the Day of Atonement was a matter of unity, of corporate identity. Each Israelite still had sacrifices to bring for his own sin, which were much closer to his sense of individual need for salvation.

4) There's a sense in which this annual event is dealing with the reality of being clean in the midst of a stained world. The church is ideally spotless and pure, but in this world such "idealism" requires maintenance. (Adam may have been alluding to this, above). Air pollution settles; it turns white buildings grey, eventually black. But if we do the spring cleaning, we won't see a shocking renewal, just a brightening. Just being in the world polluted the OT church without. And, of course, sinners within her brought contaigion. I think this recognition is part of the whole picture being shown.


----------



## smhbbag (May 14, 2007)

> I don't think there's any difference over who is being referred to between "house of Israel" and "all the people of the congregation." Two ways of describing essentially the same group; maybe saying something different about the group but still the same group.



I'm really not trying to be obstinate. But what is your reasoning for believing they are synonymous?

Especially in light of the use of "all" in the next verse, where "all" of the sins of the children of Israel have atonement made for them. 

Again, this seems to reiterate: At the very least, all sin in Israel has this atonement made for it. 

And if all sin in Israel had this atonement, then all sinners (individuals) in Israel would have it offered for them.

I certainly recognize many times where actions by the priesthood, in federal headship, does things for 'the people' but not 'for all without exception.' This just doesn't seem like one of those times.


----------



## Herald (May 14, 2007)

> Again, this seems to reiterate: At the very least, all sin in Israel has this atonement made for it.
> 
> And if all sin in Israel had this atonement, then all sinners (individuals) in Israel would have it offered for them.



I just want to make sure I am understanding you, so forgive me if I am drilling down on this repeatedly.

Do you believe the atonement in this passage forgave the sin of the individual or was it a covenantal forgiveness for the nation? If it is the former I believe that is why Bruce made his Rome connection. If it is the latter then the sin of the individual must still be dealt with by repentance and faith, which is what Matthew Henry was getting at.


----------



## smhbbag (May 14, 2007)

> I just want to make sure I am understanding you, so forgive me if I am drilling down on this repeatedly.
> 
> Do you believe the atonement in this passage forgave the sin of the individual or was it a covenantal forgiveness for the nation? If it is the former I believe that is why Bruce made his Rome connection. If it is the latter then the sin of the individual must still be dealt with by repentance and faith, which is what Matthew Henry was getting at.



I'm the last one who could be upset at making folks clarify things 

Direct answers:

A) No, the atonement in this passage did not forgive the sin of the individual, as far as actual, eternal, salvific forgiveness. The blood of bulls and goats can reconcile no one to God.

B) Yes, it was for a covenantal type of forgiveness for the community as a whole - possibly abating some of God's temporal/earthly wrath, and certainly pointing to the need for a more perfect sacrifice - one that could reconcile them to God. Their faith in God, and the blood of that perfect sacrifice, reconciles them. 

But again, I just don't see how anything I said implied that I was in line with Rome.

It does no harm to justification by faith alone to say that these people had an imperfect atonement made for them for the temporary staying of God's wrath.

As for the text, the question becomes only: Was this imperfect, temporal atonement offered for every individual's sin within Israel (and thus corporately also), or was it solely 'corporate' in nature, with no necessary meaning for individuals?


----------



## Herald (May 14, 2007)

> But again, I just don't see how anything I said implied that I was in line with Rome.



I believe there was a misunderstanding about the priests role in the atonement. The Roman view is that the priest is able to pronounce forgiveness for the individual. The Levitical priest had no such power. He presided over a ceremony that provided a covenantal forgiveness for the nation.


----------

