Then the End
Then You will delight in righteous sacrifices, in burnt offering and whole burnt offering; then young bulls will be offered on Your altar. Psalm 51:19 NASB
Then – Return of normal. That’s the result of confession, grief, suffering and forgiveness. How does David know that he will not die, that God’s mercy will prevail over the judgment he deserves? “Then” sacrifices will be a delight. After all of this is over, things will return to normal.
The Hebrew word ‘az (“then”) is very flexible. It can refer to the past, present or future. What is particularly important about this word is that it is emphatic. It’s the temporal exclamation point. Something importantly distinct is in view. For David, this is a significant transition. Just a few verses earlier David proclaimed that offering sacrifices was worthless. His circumstances would not allow a sacrifice to have its desired effect. But now, now that deliberate and intentional sin has been forgiven, now the daily sacrifices can continue as before. Now the sacrifices are righteous.
Actually, the Hebrew is zevhe-tsedeq, “correct sacrifices,” “sacrifices that are the right and accurate thing to do.” Any previous sacrifice conducted while the king remained unrepentant and involved in sin were fruitless, pointless and without merit. They were pretense and posturing, stripped of their spiritual efficacy because of the heart condition of the one sacrificing. But now things are different. After this entire affair has been publicly aired, admitted and confessed; after the king has been restored to fellowship with God, then the delight of the Lord will once again shine upon the rituals of worship. Then whole burnt offerings will have their proper meaning.
There were many different sacrifices. Each one had a specific purpose. David’s selection of the whole burnt offering is important because this was an atonement sacrifice. David concludes that the ritual process of atonement can now have its full effect, for him and for the people of God, because the king has been restored.
Unfortunately, many Christian commentators confuse the Levitical atonement sacrifice with the death of Yeshua on the cross. John Rittenbaugh offers a typical Christian interpretation. “This is commonly called the burnt offering, but sometimes the whole burnt offering. The reason ‘whole’ is added is because other offerings are burned on the altar but not the whole animal. This offering represents Christ, or in parallel, us, being completely, wholeheartedly devoted to God.”[1] Another Christian answer includes the mistaken theological idea of sinful nature. “A person could give a burnt offering at any time. It was a sacrifice of general atonement—an acknowledgement of the sin nature and a request for renewed relationship with God.”[2]
It is simply impossible that David or the Levitical priests thought of the whole burnt offering in this way. Impossible because the offering was not for intentional sin and impossible because Yeshua’s death on the cross was not atonement for sin. We are better off not using concepts from Reformation theology in order to understand David’s world. The whole burnt offering was atonement—for individuals and for the people at large. But it was not for sins like David’s and until David’s sin is reconciled, his role as king jeopardizes the entire kingdom. No more proof of this is necessary than the subsequent history of the kings of Israel.
Then (‘az) is a very important word at the conclusion of David’s personal confession. It signifies that life will return to the proper and normal interplay between sacred and profane. The Levites will continue to follow God’s instructions. The people will be delivered from the communal judgment on the king. God is good and the sacrifices, properly done, prove it.
Topical Index: righteous sacrifice, zevhe-tsedeq, then, ‘az, Psalm 51:19
[1] http://www.cgg.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Library.sr/CT/PERSONAL/k/795/The-Offerings-of-Leviticus-Part-Two-Burnt-Offering.htm
[2] http://www.gotquestions.org/burnt-offering.html
Atonement is only possible AFTER repentance of sin. Yeshua’s death is for me ONLY after I have answered to the Law, and brought myself to the only correct place I have in relation to it: “Father, forgive me!” The Law shows me the Way to the cross. There is only one way to the atonement, and that is by way of Sinai. There is only one definition of fractured love, and that definition is being spoken through all eternity, for what He speaks once for all us who are defined by time, He speaks for all time Who is the Definer of that time. He does not alter what comes out of His mouth, for what comes out of His mouth IS reality, and all of it He pronounces good. Why should the Law, spoken by His own mouth, be any exception? If the Law were not “holy, just and good” He need not have died. If the Law were not the very definition of His character, He need not have had to answer to it in our place. Only if love were not love, need He to have not died for us. If He had to die because of the fact that we were created to have our very existence defined by love (which means that we cease to exist without it), then we have no way to exist without answering to that Definition given to us on that mountain. Yeshua came to live out His character (which is what the Law defines) in our place. This is the gift He came to give us. Love IS Life, and this Life is what we are missing. We cannot supply this Life for ourselves, but we do have to show up to the trading post and trade in our death (fracture) for it. Is this a one-time trade? Perhaps it is, at the last possible moment, for a dying person, say, but the rest of us, even if we are completely sorry for it all, still have not learned to stay sorry! For that reason, there is grace; not so we can continue to sin, but BECAUSE we do, in fact, continue to sin. Grace is not license for sin; grace is so that I can repent. Again. Grace provides a free (to me) ride, but there is only one destination on the grace bus, and that is Sinai. Grace gets me to a place where I can do something about my need for atonement, but grace was NEVER that Atonement, nor does it replace it. Yes, I need atonement, but grace only and forever exists so that I can get back to Sinai. Why there? Because there is only one definition of what I need to do, and that is repent of breaking that Law. Grace does not clear the runway to atonement: grace clears the runway to repentance. The Law must be satisfied (not nullified!) before atonement can be efficacious.
I have to be sorry, before I can be saved.
Yes, definitely not a Sin offering. Also not a guilt offering…
Was it for Atonement? Or rather for Appeasement.
For me the burnt offering is about approaching / acknowledging YHWH and not about men really.
It was what Noach and Abraham (offering Yitzak) brought.
In this sense Yeshua could also be seen as a Burnt offering… but then as the totality of Torah, Yeshua fulfilled all offerings both as sacrifice and the presiding High Priest.
Skip said “Yeshua’s death on the cross was not atonement for sin.” Ok, since no one is asking and I must be the only one who doesn’t know, if his death was not atonement for sin, then what was it? And if his death doesn’t atone for sin, then what does? From some other TW posts I remember reading something about the purpose of his death was to overcome death. Is that the answer?
Skip also said “Another Christian answer includes the mistaken theological idea of sinful nature.” Isn’t the concept of yetzer hara (Hebrew: יֵצֶר הַרַע, (evil inclination) similar to this idea? What about what Paul identified as the “flesh”. If the idea of sinful nature is mistaken, how so?
Well, I have probably gone over my limit for questions in one comment so I’ll quit (I could probably come up with more 🙂 ). Thanks in advance to anyone who wants to help answer any of them.
Mel, I am so glad you asked. I am surprised nobody asked before now. But the complete answer to your questions cannot be given here in a few paragraphs. Please, read Skip’s book, Cross Word Puzzles. It shows clearly, by scripture, that Yeshua was sacrificed before the beginning of time for sin. Otherwise, the heroes of the TaNaKh could not have been accepted by YHWH. However, He still had to die on the cross to defeat the last enemy — DEATH! The Roman landscape was littered with crosses and bloody corpses of those who defied Rome. But Yeshua didn’t stay dead. After three days He arose! Oh death, where is thy sting? Other details disqualified the cross as the sin sacrifice, e.g., since it occurred outside the city — not on the altar of the Temple. Skip details a long list of these “disqualifications” in his book. He makes it so clear, it cannot be denied and universalized, and brought forward into the common Christian theology. I would love to hear your response after you have read the book.
I have read Skip’s book Crossword Puzzles and it left me w/many questions and confusion. I just couldn’t sort it out in my brain.
Then Pieter shared some of his views with me and it suddenly fell into place. I wouldn’t do it justice, i wish he would respond here.
Messiah was so much more then an atonement, sin offering.
See my book, Cross Word Puzzles, for the question about atonement and the cross. As for sinful nature and the yetzer ha’ra, Abraham Heschel and Dwight Pryor offer conclusive evidence that these two conceptions of human being are radically different, have different origins and implications and create completely different views of God. I highly recommend you read Heschel and listen to Pryor’s lectures.
Thanks Donna, bp wade and Skip for your responses. I have a friend who read “Crossword Puzzles” and still had a lot of questions. But I will order a copy of “Crossword Puzzles” and read it for myself. I hope it deals with some scriptures that seem to say clearly that Yeshua died for our sins. For example: Gal. 1:4, 1 Cor. 15:3, and 1 Pet. 3:18. bp wade do you remember where Pieter’s comments could be found? Was it on another TW?
Skip, on the subject of sinful nature, I have several of Abraham Heschel’s books. Do you which one(s) deal with this subject? Like I said above I will order a copy of your book and also try to access Dwight Pryor’s lectures. Thanks so much for your help.
Unfortunately, Heschel’s thoughts are scattered across many books. I think his God in Search of Man deals with this.
Thanks Skip.