Distinctive Difference
Therefore Jesus also, that He might sanctify the people through His own blood, suffered outside the gate. Hebrews 13:12 NASB
Sanctify – It’s easy to get a bit confused by this verse and others like it. Not differentiating “sanctify” from “atone,” we might think that this verse supports the idea that Yeshua died for our sins. But the verse doesn’t actually say that. The reason it doesn’t is because it uses the Greek verb hagiazo (to sanctify), not hilaskomai (to be propitious). Let’s examine the technical differences.
First, hagiazo, the Greek verb used in this verse, means “to be sanctified, to be set apart for God’s purposes.” It is the moral result of atonement. It is not atonement. This is the process that describes being consciously used by God for His purposes. It is the development of holiness. That might take a long time for us, but the reason it is even possible, according to the author of this text, is that Yeshua’s sacrifice enabled us to be recognized as worthy of this development. I have argued that the death on the cross overcame the final symptom of defilement, namely, death itself. And once death is conquered, then the resurrection of Yeshua signals the first-fruit acceptance of all those who are his followers. To be sanctified is to be a participant in the kingdom established by the act of the king’s perfect representative.
Atonement, however, is described by another word group, found in the same letter in Hebrews 2:17.
Therefore, He had to be made like His brethren in all things, so that He might become a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people.
Here the term is hilaskomai—to be propitious, gracious. It is the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew kaphar (Strong’s 3722). The TDNT notes:
Among the people of God nothing is to be left unexpiated. God himself has provided the means of expiation. Expiation restores the disrupted relation with God except where sinners cut themselves off from the community by willful transgression. Whatever is affected by sin or uncleanness needs expiation, for it cannot stand before the holy God and his threatened judgment. Expiation is made supremely by the blood of offerings. God has ordained that this should be so, and blood is appropriate in view of the life that it contains. Life is threatened if expiation is not made, and preserved if it is. Since life is thus saved by life, the idea of vicariousness is undeniably present in some sense.[1]
Surprisingly, other words in the same group are rare in the Greek apostolic material.
In the NT hiláskomai occurs only in Lk. 18:13; Heb. 2:17, exiláskomai not at all. In Lk. 18:13 hilásthēti is a cry to God for mercy. In Heb. 2:17 the task of Jesus as High Priest is to expiate sins before God. The idea is not to make God gracious nor to conquer sins ethically. The interesting thing in the construction and meaning of hiláskomai and exiláskomai is the addition to the sense “to propitiate” (with accusative of the person propitiated) of the sense “to purge” (with accusative of the person or object purged) and “to expiate” (with accusative of the guilt expiated or with perí, apó, etc.). This was a natural development, since that which makes God gracious also purges from sin and expiates its guilt. No less striking, however, is that words that originally denote our human action in relation to God are now used instead for God’s divine action in relation to us and on our behalf.[2]
What can we conclude in this very brief consideration? That the atoning work of YHVH belongs to YHVH alone, but the entry into participation in the kingdom is facilitated by the Messiah’s sanctifying effort. We need both but they are not the same. We are forgiven through God’s atoning process, some of which includes the sacrifices described in Leviticus. God forgives, but that is not the end of the story. God forgives in order that we might be sanctified, that is, in order that we might become full participants in God’s purposes, and that possibility is based on the first-fruit example set by the Messiah.
Topical Index: sanctify, atone, , hagiazo, hilaskomai, Hebrews 13:12, Hebrews 2:17
[1] Kittel, G., Friedrich, G., & Bromiley, G. W. (1985). Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (p. 363). Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans.
[2] Kittel, G., Friedrich, G., & Bromiley, G. W. (1985). Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (p. 364). Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans.
Just out of curiosity…
How would this relate to the explanation that Paul provides in Ephesians 5… All happening through the spoken word (Rom 10:17 creating faith). Would Yeshua’ have gone outside the normal religious practices (blood or sacrifice) to preach and sanctify to the lost sheep as they would not be entering the normal religious practices (If they did they were not lost).
And then would this be what is revealed in 1 COR 15: 1-7 OR rather versus 20 through till the end of the chapter…
Those sent to redeem are specifically called and when we adapt to their teachings we manifest the coming of Christ (Where two or more are gathered in My name).
In the Tabernacle service, the act of blood sprinkling signified cleansing of sin. Through the sacrificed life of the animals, blood from that sacrificed life carried the SINS of the people and through the actions of sprinkling that blood, that sin was transferred to the altar every day. Once a year, that collective guilt that had accumulated had to be dealt with, for now the Tabernacle itself had a ‘full load’, so to speak, of sin. To get rid of that, the High Priest would take off his beautiful robe and, clad in the simple garment of a servant, confess his sins and the sins of the people and make sacrifice for the Tabernacle itself.
That cleansing blood was carried into the most Holy Place and sprinkled directly onto the Ark of the Covenant, which contained the copy of that broken Law. All of this was highly symbolic and meant to represent something else. The acts themselves (i.e. the actual animal blood) did not, of course, do anything, but it all pointed forward to the promised Redeemer. Those confessed sins then were transferred to the goat that was put outside the camp in the wilderness. Everything here meant something else.
Blood represents life. We say that the “blood of Jesus Christ cleanses us from all sin” (1John 1:7). That means He gave His LIFE to be able to sanctify (cleanse) us and make us free again. There is something about His life that is necessary for us to be holy. I can not be holy in my own flesh. I need His life for that. How do I get it? My Example prayed “not My will, but Thine, be done”. My will exists to choose His will. His mind, the “mind of Christ” in me enables me to apply that mysterious Other will, for then I can think His thoughts. His life in me enables me to walk free of sin.
When I “die to Christ” I can then be holy to live in Him. Paul said “to live is Christ, and to die is gain” (Phil 1:21) He was talking about one event, not two. I gain the holy life of Christ lived IN ME when I die to self for my life (represented by the blood of the slain victim) is full of sin. My death to self (repentance), then, enables my blood to be sprinkled onto that great altar, and thus eligible to be transferred to that Ark of the Covenant. This is a minute by minute process, guided by the Law, my schoolmaster, contained in that Ark, to show me what I am dying INTO. My life only becomes holy (Law fully lived in me) when His blood flows in my veins. Holiness is a blood transfusion, and it involves two deaths and a Life to accomplish. The sooner we can get my life out of the way, the better. My life is superfluous in the holiness equation, for my life was created and exists to choose His fully submitted and lived one in me. This indeed is the great mystery revealed by that death on that cross. Halleluah!
Oh duh… Thanks for reminding me. The Redeemer kinsman is a bridegroom also. He has to be related (Son of Man-second son), he has to have ability (Son of God-first son), he marries a woman who was the wife of another, yet in his eyes she is a virgin (church of flesh and spirit). The offspring of the union belong to another. (See Judah as the redeemer for Er).
You know, Bob, I have been thinking. Skip makes the point in his book, Crossword Puzzles, that that death on the cross was not primarily about shedding blood for our personal sins. God had already activated a way, which was that mysterious “Lamb slain from the foundation of the world” for our personal forgiveness. Instead, he argues that the cross was more about conquering death, which is the redemption of the cosmos from the effects of sin; namely, that death.
If I read Psalms correctly, the Tabernacle corresponds with the world around us, and so His cleansing of that Tabernacle with His life/death on the cross had to be about redemption of the cosmos, which the Day of Atonement signified. Everyday forgiveness was already covered. It was cosmic redemption from DEATH, he argues, that we should think about in terms of that cross even though we did not know about that prior personal redemption Lamb UNTIL we saw Him on that cross.
We like to think it is all about us, but the Kinsman/Creator is also woven into the fabric of His entire creation, now, too.
Our marriage has yet to be. That will be after the Bridegroom finishes completing a new home for His Bride, and we have waded through the Judgment where it is determined who His Bride is composed of. May we all be there; one happy perfect Bride, even as Christ prayed for us to be “one, even as we are One” (John 17:22), at the Supper of the Lamb. Halleluah!
I am in agreement that the cross is not about us. I see it as the Son revealing the Father, whom no man has seen. His resurrection certainly conquers death.
As mentioned previously the Hebrew word for marriage also means doctrine. The Lamb is the creator. Eating is a metaphor for learning. For me I am content to be dining at the marriage supper of the lamb now. It is the teaching of the cross, which is the doctrine of the creator.
Laurita
Is the blood not the carrier of the life/soul? For this reason we may not drink or eat it… Exegesis for me implies that in doing we reveal living or life. As you said in or through Chris – doing what he taught.
Bob
Judah as redeemer for Er. Or as Jesus told his disciples go and learn from those that sit on the chair Moses.
Concerning the virgin bride we were reminded on an earlier blog that it is when the Twelve tribes and Gentiles are united that the bride will be prepared. This gathering or unity is a new reality (virgin) orchestrated through the sacrifice on the hill of sculls…
Sorry misspelled and forgot the “t”
Outside the gate, for me , refers to the Red Heifer.
I understand Paul refers to Num. 19:4.
“And Eleazar the priest shall take of her blood with his finger, and sprinkle of her blood directly before the tabernacle of the congregation seven times:…”
But it was the ashes, etc. in the water that sanctified the congregation from contact with the dead (and their own eventual death?).
What is the meaning of the blood being sprinkled?