The next occurrence of כפר (kâphar), translated atonement, I want to consider on this pilgrimage is found in yehôvâh’s (יהוה) instruction to Moses (Exodus 29:33 NET):
[Aaron and his sons[1]] are to eat those things by which atonement was made to consecrate and to set them apart, but no one else may eat them, for they are holy.
In the Septuagint כפר (kâphar) was translated ἡγιάσθησαν (a form of ἁγιάζω). Though ἡγιάσθησαν doesn’t occur in the New Testament, other forms of ἁγιάζω do. I’ll try to be mindful of similarities between old covenant and new covenant atonement as well as differences. So many concepts appear in this verse—to consecrate and to set them apart…they are holy—I want to back up and take a run at it.
The Hebrew word translated to set them apart was לקדש (qâdash). It was translated ἁγιάσαι (another form of ἁγιάζω) in the Septuagint. “Now this is what you are to do for them to consecrate them,” yehôvâh instructed Moses, “so that they may minister as my priests.”[2] The Hebrew word translated to consecrate was also לקדש, the very same form of qâdash as to set them apart above. And in the Septuagint it was also translated ἁγιάσαι. The new covenant is quite similar.
|
1 Thessalonians 5:23, 24 (KJV) |
|
| Now may the God of peace himself make you completely holy (ἁγιάσαι, another form of ἁγιάζω) and may your spirit and soul and body be kept entirely blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. | And the very God of peace sanctify (ἁγιάσαι, another form of ἁγιάζω) you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. |
| He who calls you is trustworthy, and he will in fact do this (ποιήσει, a form of ποιέω). | Faithful is he that calleth you, who also will do it. |
Both ἁγιάσαι and τηρηθείη (a form of τηρέω; translated may…be kept [NET] and I pray God…be preserved [KJV]) are in the optative mood, the “mood of possibility.” Both verbs recognize that one’s actual state may be far removed from holiness, sanctification and blamelessness at a given moment. But ποιήσει (translated he will in fact do [NET] and who also will do [KJV]) is in the indicative mood, “a statement of fact” based on the trustworthiness or faithfulness of God in Christ. Even more precious to me, ποιήσει is future tense in the active voice.
I was one who misunderstood the “finished work of Christ” as an invitation to a do-it-yourself works religion. Since Christ was finished working, I reasoned, the rest of the distance between my current condition and his holiness and blamelessness was up to me, a race for me to run. I don’t think my pastor intended to enroll me in a works religion, except…I wonder if I, sitting idly “trusting” Jesus, could ever have understood the word of God. Or was it the desire to do his will combined with my failure to do his will that opened my mind to it? Jesus said, If anyone wants to do God’s will, he will know about my teaching, whether it is from God or whether I speak from my own authority.[3]
This epistemological aspect intrigues the philosophical bent of my mind. I earn a living on the fringes of a conference industry that, viewed economically or technologically, shouldn’t exist. Gathering in one location wastes human resources, both time and money, now that the technology exists to meet virtually. But viewed epistemologically conferences are extremely valuable. A group of people pressed together, smelling one another, espousing the same or similar opinions can more easily convince themselves that their opinions are true. The larger the group the “truer” their opinions are until that critical moment when the group fractures into disparate opinions.
I was born into evangelicalism as an established group, revealed truth. But it grew to prominence in the U.S. from many streams:
According to religion scholar, social activist, and politician Randall Balmer, Evangelicalism resulted “from the confluence of Pietism, Presbyterianism, and the vestiges of Puritanism. Evangelicalism picked up the peculiar characteristics from each strain – warmhearted spirituality from the Pietists (for instance), doctrinal precisionism from the Presbyterians, and individualistic introspection from the Puritans”.[40] Historian Mark Noll adds to this list High Church Anglicanism, which contributed to Evangelicalism a legacy of “rigorous spirituality and innovative organization”.[41]
In the 1730s, Evangelicalism emerged as a distinct phenomenon out of religious revivals that began in Britain and New England. While religious revivals had occurred within Protestant churches in the past, the evangelical revivals that marked the 18th century were more intense and radical.[48] Evangelical revivalism imbued ordinary men and women with a confidence and enthusiasm for sharing the gospel and converting others outside of the control of established churches, a key discontinuity with the Protestantism of the previous era.[49]
It was developments in the doctrine of assurance that differentiated Evangelicalism from what went before.
Before his conversion to evangelicalism, which we evangelicals assume to be synonymous with a conversion to Christ, John Wesley wrote, “I hope he has died to save me.”[60] “About a quarter before nine,” Wesley recalled his conversion, “while [the speaker] was describing the change which God works in the heart through faith in Christ, I felt my heart strangely warmed. I felt I did trust in Christ, Christ alone[4] for salvation, and an assurance was given me that he had taken away my sins, even mine, and saved me from the law of sin and death.”[61]
Evangelical preachers emphasized personal salvation and piety more than ritual and tradition. Pamphlets and printed sermons crisscrossed the Atlantic, encouraging the revivalists.[64] The Awakening resulted from powerful preaching that gave listeners a sense of deep personal revelation of their need of salvation by Jesus Christ. Pulling away from ritual and ceremony, the Great Awakening made Christianity intensely personal to the average person by fostering a deep sense of spiritual conviction and redemption, and by encouraging introspection and a commitment to a new standard of personal morality. It reached people who were already church members. It changed their rituals, their piety and their self-awareness.
By the time I arrived on the scene those new rituals, piety and self-awareness were nothing more than the ritual and tradition of a bygone era. And the critical epistemological moment had passed: evangelicalism had already fractured into many disparate opinions. Though Berger and Luckmann denied[5] it for adults, the teachings of any given religious sect are as much a part of the paramount reality[6] for children who grew up in it as anything an adult does at work.[7]
Though the relatively mindless taken-for-granted-ness[8] of the reality of everyday life shares some of the same blindness (Isaiah 42:18-25) to alternatives as religious faith, it was not faith in Christ in my case. And apparently, part of my attempt to reinsert myself into the church I had abandoned and the mindless-taken-for-granted-ness of my youth, what I have called “fighting my way back from atheism,”[9] was like Cypher’s (Joe Pantoliano) attempt to be reinserted into The Matrix. When my pastor lamented that most people came to Christ as children rather than as adults I nodded my “Amen” despite my anomalous personal history.
Now it seems obvious that there is no intrinsic reason that God would be merciful to children but not to adults. An eternal life knowing the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom [He] sent,[10] living his own love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control,[11] should be more appealing to those who have been around awhile and have had their fill of sin than to those for whom everything is still new and interesting. I don’t doubt the accuracy of my pastor’s reflections on his experience. But the truth behind that actuality seems to be that nearly three centuries of dumbing eternal life down to gaining heaven (or its corollary, escaping hell) has blunted the effectiveness of the gospel presented by evangelicalism.
“Evangelical revivalism” may have “imbued ordinary men and women with a confidence and enthusiasm for sharing the gospel” in its early days. But by the time I was born into it “sharing the gospel” had become a necessary condition for belonging to the group. As such, there were many aids, tips, tricks and techniques to make it easier for any Peter, Paul and Mary to “share the gospel.” So we drowned the voices of God-gifted apostles and evangelists (Ephesians 4:11-16) in a sea of gospel peddlers promoting Jesus as a means to an end. Even that end is now largely imaginary. What is heaven, after all, but knowing the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom [He] sent, face to face, living his own love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control, forever?
In an opinion piece on Fox News Chris Sonksen cited Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s concept of a “wish dream” from his book Life Together:
Every human wish dream that is injected into the Christian community is a hindrance to genuine community and must be banished if genuine community is to survive. He who loves his dream of a community more than the Christian community itself becomes a destroyer of the latter, even though his personal intentions may be ever so honest and earnest and sacrificial.
Bonhoeffer’s wish dream intrigues me because of my own running feud with “the pursuit of happiness.” Pegging my happiness to a fantasy of my own mind—I will be happy if…—was at best nonsensical and at worst a diabolical prescription for unhappiness. Even when I have achieved my goals happiness was no longer-lived than that which one should expect from such achievement. It has proven far better to pursue Christ (Philippians 3:8-11) and his righteousness, and let happiness float freely with the ups and downs of life. Now I’m mostly happy.
Pastor Sonksen’s point was:
God did not wire us to be alone. We are truly better together. It’s in community that we grow, are challenged, stretched, and inspired to truly live for Jesus. It’s messy, difficult, and at times frustrating…but it’s so worth it.
All true, though I would tend to credit the Holy Spirit, filling me with God’s own love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control toward others, over the mere fact of being in community with them. Pastor Sonksen wasn’t referring to the communities most of us actually live and work in, however. (Admittedly, my community is more transient and geographically dispersed than most.) His plea was to the once a week, twice a week, thrice a week meetings (ἐπισυναγωγὴν, a form of ἐπισυναγωγή) of a contemporary church for the purpose of encouraging (παρακαλοῦντες, a form of παρακαλέω), inciting (παροξυσμὸν) one another on to love and [beautiful] (καλῶν, a form of καλός) works.[12]
One hopes that a pastor lives in that eternal life of knowing the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom [He] sent, buoyed up in God’s own love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control by the Holy Spirit and his own immersion in scripture. As such, he may be the last to recognize that the church he pastors enforces—by its rituals and traditions, by the way things are done, by the relatively mindless taken-for-granted-ness of the reality of everyday life within its walls—a lesser form of spirituality than being led by the Holy Spirit.
I don’t know Pastor Sonksen or South Hills Church. I can’t say this is the case there. I’m recognizing the possibility from my own past. But it is the wish dream of every pastor that God will make his congregation completely holy and keep their spirit and soul and body entirely blameless through the well-ordered operation of the church he pastors.
The similarity between the atonement of Aaron and his sons to consecrate and to set them apart and our atonement is that it required no work on Aaron’s part or of his sons, only submission to God’s word (Exodus 29) and Moses’ ministry of that word (Leviticus 8). The difference is clearly stated in the text (Exodus 29:1b-3 NET):
Take a young bull and two rams without blemish; and bread made without yeast, and perforated cakes without yeast mixed with oil, and wafers without yeast spread with oil – you are to make them using fine wheat flour. You are to put them in one basket and present them in the basket, along with the bull and the two rams.
We are no longer made holy, consecrated or set apart by bulls or rams or bread or cakes or wafers without yeast, mixed with oil or spread with oil (Hebrews 10:1-10 NET).
For the law possesses a shadow of the good things to come but not the reality (εἰκόνα, a form of εἰκών) itself, and is therefore completely unable, by the same sacrifices offered continually, year after year, to perfect (τελειῶσαι, a form of τελειόω) those who come to worship. For otherwise would they not have ceased to be offered, since the worshipers would have been purified once for all and so have no further consciousness (συνείδησιν, a form of συνείδησις) of sin? But in those sacrifices there is a reminder of sins year after year. For the blood of bulls and goats cannot take away (ἀφαιρεῖν, a form of ἀφαιρέω) sins. So when he came into the world, he said, “Sacrifice and offering you did not desire, but a body you prepared for me.
“Whole burnt offerings and sin-offerings you took no delight in.
“Then I said, ‘Here I am: I have come – it is written of me in the scroll of the book – to do your will, O God.’”
When he says above, “Sacrifices and offerings and whole burnt offerings and sin-offerings you did not desire nor did you take delight in them” (which are offered according to the law), then he says, “Here I am: I have come to do your will.” He does away (ἀναιρεῖ, a form of ἀναιρέω) with the first to establish (στήσῃ, a form of ἵστημι) the second. By his will we have been made holy (ἡγιασμένοι, another form of ἁγιάζω) through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
So the finished work of Christ is that we have been made holy through the offering of [his] body…once for all. The ongoing work the God of peace…will in fact do because He is trustworthy seems to be the breaking down of my resistance (Hebrews 12:5-13) to Him and his will and the truth of his word, filling me instead with faith in Him and his word, so that the holiness I have been made through the offering of his body once for all is manifest to me, and to others, here and now. That God will do (ποιήσει, a form of ποιέω) this is quite evocative of the doer (ποιηταὶ, a form of ποιητής) of the law and of the one who practices the truth [who] comes to the light, so that it may be plainly evident that his deeds have been done (εἰργασμένα, a form of ἐργάζομαι) in God.[13]
A table comparing Hebrews 10:1-10 in the NET and KJV follows. If the parallel Greek of the NET differs from the Stephanus Textus Receptus or the Byzantine Majority Text I broke the table to highlight that difference.
|
Hebrews 10:1-9 (KJV) |
|
| For the law possesses a shadow of the good things to come but not the reality itself, and is therefore completely unable, by the same sacrifices offered continually, year after year, to perfect those who come to worship. | For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect. |
| For otherwise would they not have ceased to be offered, since the worshipers would have been purified once for all and so have no further consciousness of sin? | For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins. |
| But in those sacrifices there is a reminder of sins year after year. | But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year. |
| For the blood of bulls and goats cannot take away sins. | For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins. |
| So when he came into the world, he said, “Sacrifice and offering you did not desire, but a body you prepared for me. | Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me: |
| “Whole burnt offerings and sin-offerings you took no delight in. | In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure. |
| “Then I said, ‘Here I am: I have come – it is written of me in the scroll of the book – to do your will, O God.’” | Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God. |
| When he says above, “Sacrifices and offerings and whole burnt offerings and sin-offerings you did not desire nor did you take delight in them” (which are offered according to the law), | Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law; |
| Stephanus Textus Receptus | ||
| ἀνώτερον λέγων ὅτι θυσίας[14] καὶ προσφορὰς[15] καὶ ὁλοκαυτώματα καὶ περὶ ἁμαρτίας οὐκ ἠθέλησας οὐδὲ εὐδόκησας (αἵτινες κατὰ νόμον προσφέρονται) | ανωτερον λεγων οτι θυσιαν[16] και προσφοραν[17] και ολοκαυτωματα και περι αμαρτιας ουκ ηθελησας ουδε ευδοκησας αιτινες κατα τον νομον προσφερονται | ανωτερον λεγων οτι θυσιαν και προσφοραν και ολοκαυτωματα και περι αμαρτιας ουκ ηθελησας ουδε ευδοκησας αιτινες κατα τον νομον προσφερονται |
| then he says, “Here I am: I have come to do your will.” He does away with the first to establish the second. | Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second. |
| Stephanus Textus Receptus | ||
| τότε εἴρηκεν· ἰδοὺ ἥκω τοῦ ποιῆσαι τὸ θέλημα σου. ἀναιρεῖ τὸ πρῶτον ἵνα τὸ δεύτερον στήσῃ | τοτε ειρηκεν ιδου ηκω του ποιησαι ο θεος το θελημα σου αναιρει το πρωτον ινα το δευτερον στηση | τοτε ειρηκεν ιδου ηκω του ποιησαι ο θεος το θελημα σου αναιρει το πρωτον ινα το δευτερον στηση |
| Hebrews 10:10 (NET) |
Hebrews 10:10 (KJV) |
| By his will we have been made holy (ἡγιασμένοι,[18] another form of ἁγιάζω) through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. | By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. |
| Stephanus Textus Receptus | ||
| ἐν ᾧ θελήματι ἡγιασμένοι ἐσμὲν διὰ τῆς προσφορᾶς τοῦ σώματος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐφάπαξ | εν ω θεληματι ηγιασμενοι εσμεν οι[19] δια της προσφορας του σωματος του[20] ιησου χριστου εφαπαξ | εν ω θεληματι ηγιασμενοι εσμεν οι δια της προσφορας του σωματος ιησου χριστου εφαπαξ |
[4] “Christ alone” is so much better an expression than “faith alone” with its scriptural association to dead faith: But would you like evidence, you empty fellow, that faith without works is useless? Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? You see that his faith was working together with his works and his faith was perfected (ἐτελειώθη, a form of τελειόω) by works. And the scripture was fulfilled (ἐπληρώθη, a form of πληρόω) that says, “Now Abraham believed God and it was counted to him for righteousness,” and he was called God’s friend. You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. And similarly, was not Rahab the prostitute also justified by works when she welcomed the messengers and sent them out by another way? For just as the body without the spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead [Table] (James 2:20-26 NET).
[5] “All finite provinces of meaning are characterized by a turning away of attention from the reality of everyday life. While there are, of course, shifts in attention within everyday life, the shift to a finite province of meaning is of a much more radical kind. A radical change takes place in the tension of consciousness. In the context of religious experience this has been aptly called ‘leaping’. It is important to stress, however, that the reality of everyday life retains its paramount status even as such ‘leaps’ take place.”
Peter L. Berger and Thomas Luckmann, “The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge,” 1966, p. 39
[6] “Compared to the reality of everyday life, other realities appear as finite provinces of meaning, enclaves within the paramount reality marked by circumscribed meanings and modes of experience. The paramount reality envelops them on all sides, as it were, and consciousness always returns to the paramount reality as from an excursion.”
Ibid., p. 39
[7] “Closest to me is the zone of everyday life that is directly accessible to my bodily manipulation. This zone contains the world within my reach, the world in which I act so as to modify its reality, or the world in which I work. In this world of working my consciousness is dominated by the pragmatic motive, that is, my attention to this world is mainly determined by what I am doing, have done or plan to do in it. In this way it is my world par excellence.”
Ibid., p. 36
[8] “The reality of everyday life is taken for granted as reality. It does not require additional verification over and beyond its simple presence. It is simply there, as self-evident and compelling facticity. I know that it is real. While I am capable of engaging in doubt about its reality, I am obliged to suspend such doubt as I routinely exist in everyday life. This suspension of doubt is so firm that to abandon it, as I might want to do, say, in theoretical or religious contemplation, I have to make an extreme transition. The world of everyday life proclaims itself and, when I want to challenge the proclamation, I must engage in a deliberate, by no means easy effort.”
Ibid., p. 37
[9] Solomon’s Wealth, Part 4; A Monotonous Cycle, Part 2; A Monotonous Cycle, Part 3; A Monotonous Cycle, Part 5; Who Am I? Part 1; Torture, Part 4
[14] Accusative plural feminine form of θυσία
[15] Accusative plural feminine form of προσφορά
[16] Accusative singular feminine form of θυσία
[17] Accusative singular feminine form of προσφορά
[18] Perfect passive participle nominative plural masculine form of ἁγιάζω