A Better Sacrifice
New and Improved: The Better Covenant • Sermon • Submitted • Presented • 1:12:11
0 ratings
· 208 viewsFiles
Notes
Transcript
Jesus Christ has brought into effect a better arrangement for mankind to live in a relationship with God than what Moses instituted. The new covenant is better than the old covenant. We have been working through the major section of the book of Hebrews in which the author of this letter developed that truth. Already we have seen that he has explained that Jesus, as high priest of the new covenant, is better than the priests of the old covenant, and that the temple where Jesus acts as high priest (heaven) is better than any earthly temple, incl\uding the tabernacle/temple used by the children of Israel.
His final argument is that the new covenant has a better sacrifice than all the sacrifices offered under the old covenant and is, therefore, the better covenant. The sacrifices under the covenant instituted by Moses were animal sacrifices - sheep, goats, bulls and the like. The sacrifice under the new covenant instituted by Jesus was himself. That’s the comparison — old covenant, animals bled and died because of sin; new covenant, Jesus bled and died because of sin.
The death of Jesus is a better arrangement for us to have a relationship with God than the death of animals practiced by the Israelites through the centuries from the time of Moses until the time of Christ. This morning we’re going to explore why that is true. Hold your Bible open. We’re going to be looking at a larger portion of scripture than what I read a moment ago. The author wrote about and contrasted the sacrifices of the new and old covenants from 9:11-10:18. I will make reference to statements found throughout that section.
Before we learn why the death of Jesus is better than the death of animals, we need to understand why sacrifice is necessary. Why is sacrificial death essential to both the old and new covenant? 9:22 provides the answer:
22 Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.
Sin is the problem. For us to live in relationship with a holy God, our sins must be dealt with. But without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins. It is a principle established within the creation itself that sin must end in death. Consequently, without a death occurring - the shedding of blood - there can be no relationship between God and man. The only way for sinful men to approach God is by means of a victim whose life was given for the sake of sinners. Every sin must have an accompanying death . That’s why sacrifice is necessary. Sin is never merely ignored by God. It is only resolved by death.
Now the author’s point in this letter is that Jesus’ death is better for overcoming sin than the death of animals. Indeed, as we will see, his death is the only sacrifice that overcomes our disobedience. Think about why that is so. Why is the death of Jesus the only solution to the problem of sin? Let’s draw two comparisons between animal sacrifices and the sacrifice of Jesus:
1)The death of Jesus was a willing sacrifice.
1)The death of Jesus was a willing sacrifice.
Let me point out several verses:
12 he entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption.
14 how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our conscience from dead works to serve the living God.
26 for then he would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.
Each of these verses is describing the truth that when Jesus, acting as the high priest of the new covenant, made a sacrifice for sin, he offered himself. Compare that with what vs. 25 says about the old covenant sacrifices:
25 Nor was it to offer himself repeatedly, as the high priest enters the holy places every year with blood not his own,
Do you see the difference? When the priests making old covenant sacrifices did their work, they used blood that was not their own to show that a death for sin had happened. When Jesus did his work as the priest of the new covenant, he used his own blood to show that a death for sin had happened. That means the old covenant sacrifices were involuntary and the new covenant sacrifice was voluntary.
Imagine yourself as one of the animals used in the sacrificial system. Let’s call you Gus the goat. You are happily going about the every day activities of a a goat - grazing, chewing your cud, butting heads with other goats. Then your owner puts a rope around your neck and leads you to the temple in Jerusalem to offer you as a sacrifice. How many of the millions of animals used as sacrifices over the centuries chose to be used as sacrifices with their blood being used to atone for the wrongs of those who offered them? None! All the sacrifices under the old covenant were unwilling participants in the drama of redemption.
But Jesus offered himself. He put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. He was not just the high priest who made the sacrifice. He was the sacrifice. Jesus’ death for sin was a willing, voluntary death.
A few years ago I did a study in the gospels for my own interest. I looked for all the times when someone suggested to Jesus that he avoid the cross. There were more than you might imagine - from the temptations at the beginning of his ministry, to Peter’s statement after confessing him as the Messiah that he would never die on the cross, to Pilate’s attempts to release him. At each and every point at which he might have avoided dying on the cross, Jesus opposed those who would have turned him aside from the death he died. He wasn’t the unwilling victim in his crucifixion. It is clear that, from the time of his baptism on, he chose the cross.
Which is the real sacrifice? The one made willingly, or the one made unwillingly. Logic says the willing sacrifice is real and the unwilling one is not. Jesus’ sacrifice is the real sacrifice for sin because he offered himself.
2)The death of Jesus is an effective sacrifice.
2)The death of Jesus is an effective sacrifice.
Let’s observe, first of all, the very clear distinction made between the frequency of sacrifices under the new and old covenants. First the old covenant:
25 Nor was it to offer himself repeatedly, as the high priest enters the holy places every year with blood not his own,
1 For since the law has but a shadow of the good things to come instead of the true form of these realities, it can never, by the same sacrifices that are continually offered every year, make perfect those who draw near. 2 Otherwise, would they not have ceased to be offered, since the worshipers, having once been cleansed, would no longer have any consciousness of sins? 3 But in these sacrifices there is a reminder of sins every year.
11 And every priest stands daily at his service, offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins.
The point seems quite clear. The animal sacrifices made under the old covenant had to be repeated over and over again.
Contrast that with what the author of this letter says about Jesus’ sacrifice of himself:
26 for then he would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.
28 so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him.
10 And by that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
12 But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God,
14 For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.
Do you get the impression that the author’s intent was to point out that the death of Jesus was a single sacrifice which covers a multitude of sins? Throughout this section he hits away at it like a jackhammer - the new covenant depends on a single sacrifice while the old covenant depends on constantly repeated sacrifices.
Suppose you wake up tomorrow and try to start your vehicle but it doesn’t start. You get it towed to the mechanic who “fixes” it. But the next day you get up to discover that your vehicle won’t start. Once again, you get it towed to the mechanic who fixes it. And the same thing happens day after day after day. After a few days, you complain to the mechanic, who informs you that he has the same problem with his own vehicle and that he has to apply the same fix to his own car all the time. Would you not soon conclude that your mechanic is actually incapable of fixing the problem you have with your vehicle?
That’s the scenario that the author of Hebrews describes with the animal sacrifices of the old covenant. He says that the very fact that they have to be repeated over and over and over again is proof that they don’t actually fix the problem of sin. They merely remind us that sin is a problem and that all sin has to be overcome by death.
The ineffectiveness of animal sacrifices is stated conclusively in 10:4;
4 For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.
This is not a change in the plan of God that occurred in the 1st century. The animal sacrifices of the old covenant never were intended to take away sins. They were only ever meant to foreshadow the once and for all sacrifice which would solve the problem of sin - Jesus’ sacrifice of himself for sins.
As ineffective as animal sacrifices were for dealing with the problem of sin, the death of Christ is completely effective. He has “put away sin by the sacrifice of himself,” (9:26) and, “by a single sacrifice he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.” What the blood of bulls and goats was incapable of achieving through millions of sacrificial deaths, Jesus did by a single sacrifice - the offering of himself as the atoning sacrifice for sin on the cross.
The death of Jesus is the only sacrifice that effectively overcomes the problem of human sin and makes it possible for us to have a relationship with a holy God. There never has been and never will be another sacrifice which takes away sins. That’s why we have 10:18:
18 Where there is forgiveness of these, there is no longer any offering for sin.
There is no longer any offering for sin because the only offering needed took place when Jesus died on the cross.
What all of this tells us is that the once for all sacrifice of Jesus is the only sacrifice which takes away sin. The effectiveness of the new covenant’s sacrifice doesn’t mean it is just better than the old covenant sacrifices. It means that it is the only real hope we have.
--
I want to close by drawing together the far-reaching implications of what we have learned from today’s passage. Let me state the logic of Christian hope in four sentences:
1, Sin is every person’s problem.
2. We must either have our sin removed through the offering of a sacrifice or suffer God’s eternal condemnation.
3. The only sacrifice which removes our sin is the death of Jesus Christ.
4. Therefore, our only hope of escaping condemnation is to trust Christ as Savior and Lord.
All other hopes are false hopes. If you are pinning your hope of eternal life on anything other than the truth that Jesus died for your sins and God’s forgiveness is yours through faith in him, you are clinging to a false hope. You can look at it and think, “It’s pretty bleak to declare all other hopes to be false hopes.” But it’s the truth even if it seems bleak. And it is only bleak if we reject the once for all sacrifice Christ made for sinners. “But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.” (9:26b) You see, there is real hope. Don’t cling to false hopes. Trust in Christ, the better, indeed the only real sacrifice for sin. Amen.