Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
We agree on Practicalities!
Laying on of hands
One of the ways to draw a conclusion on what/who the animals in the
tabernacle types represent is the act of laying on of hands. This concept is so
meaningful and yet it's significance is buried today. Even more surprising is that
in biblical times it was such a simple and elemental concept that the writer to the
Hebrews said that it should be understood by those on the milk of the word.
HEB 6:1 - Therefore, leaving the first principles of the doctrine of the
Anointed one, we should progress towards maturity: not again laying
down a foundation for reformation from works causing death, and of
faith in God: for the doctrines of immersions, and of the imposition
(laying on) of hands...
However, no rationale is offered as to it's logic nor are any scriptures given to
support it, so we should have biblically investigated this conclusion ourselves.
One of the first instances for laying on of hands can be found in Genesis
48:14. In this case Jacob is imparting the blessing to Joseph's sons Ephraim and
Manasseh. He crossed his hands and knowingly blesses the younger brother
Ephraim. When Joseph objects, Jacob responds, "I know it my son, I know." No
doubt that Jacob had learned well the principle of God choosing the younger over
the older as God had with Isaac over his older brother Ishmael as well as his
choosing Jacob over Esau. As he blessed Joseph's sons he acknowledged the
choice of God over the natural choice.
Another instance is the passing on of power from Moses to Joshua (NUM
27:19). The Lord commands Moses to take Joshua before the priest and the
congregation (in the sight of all) to put him in charge. Joshua was the choice of
the Lord, and the people needed to see Moses acknowledge this not just mentally
but physically with the imposition of hands. Notice that in most instances of this
act, the Lord spoke directly, indicating his decision on the matter at hand. Again,
he acknowledged the choice of God by laying on of hands.
The strongest case however against "this represents me/us" is in LEV
24:10-23.
And the son of an Israelite woman, whose father was an Egyptian, went out
among the children of Israel: and this son of the Israelite woman and a man
of Israel strove together in the camp; And the Israelite woman's son
blasphemed the name of the Lord, and cursed. And they brought him unto
Moses: (and his mother's name was Shelomith, the daughter of Dibri, of the
tribe of Dan:)...Bring forth him that hath cursed without the camp; and let all
that heard him lay their hands upon his head, and let all the
congregation stone him....And Moses spake to the children of Israel, that
they should bring forth him that had cursed out of the camp, and stone him
with stones. And the children of Israel did as the LORD commanded Moses.
Once again this can only mean that those who laid hands upon his head
were acknowledging the choice of God that had been told to them. If this act truly
ACT 13:1-4 Now there were in the church that was at Antioch certain
prophets and teachers; as Barnabas, and Simeon that was called Niger,
and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen, which had been brought up with
Herod the tetrarch, and Saul. As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted,
the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work
whereunto I have called them. And when they had fasted and prayed, and
laid their hands on them, they sent them away. So they, being sent forth
by the Holy Ghost, departed unto Seleucia; and from thence they sailed
to Cyprus.
The Holy Spirit chooses Barnabas and Saul to execute a specific work. Those who
gathered laid on hands to confirm the certain choice of the Holy Spirit. In this
and other cases, laying on of hands is the act of acknowledging or corroborating
the choice that God had previously made. This action shows complete conformity
rather than just simply making a mental agreement as would normally be
required.
Having investigated this we can accurately reexamine these actions in the
tabernacle. When the High Priest, the son of the High Priest, or an Israelite laid
their hands on an animal it should take on a different meaning. These people
brought sin offering (or other animal offerings) and agreed with God that the
animal bore and took away their sin. They were physically and mentally
confirming before God, the priest, and any other onlookers, that this animal is
God's choice to placate their sin.
Finally let us try to use the analogy of "this represents us" in different
tabernacle settings regarding laying on of hands. The following chart helps
illustrate the inconsistency "this represents us" as taught in the Tabernacle
Shadows of the Better Sacrifices.
1. How can Aaron represent Jesus Alone in Leviticus 8 and the represent Jesus
and the Church in Leviticus 16?
2. How can the Church be represented in the Sons in Leviticus 8 and then be
represented in Aaron in Leviticus 16?
3. If Laying on of hands means this “represents us”, then how can Aaron
represent the Great Company?
4. If Laying on of hands means this “represents us”, then how can Israel be
represented in the young man who was stoned?
Question #1
"We request them to explain why two animals should be killed to represent the
one death of Jesus? What is signified by these two sacrifices, the bullock and the
goat?"
LEV 16:5 And he shall take of the congregation of the children of Israel
two kids of the goats for a sin offering,
LEV 16:6 And Aaron shall offer his bullock of the sin offering,
There are two anti typical choices to make when looking at animal types.
The first being that each animal represents the one who lays their hands on the
head of the animal, which is put forth in Tabernacle Shadows. The second is that
each animal represents a different aspect of the same person, namely Jesus.
There is great significance in the fact that there were two different animals used
for sin offerings in this chapter and the answer is simple yet eloquent. The church
perceives the death of Christ on their behalf in the most mature sense when
compared to the rest of the world. Mankind will never have the insight into his
death that the church has. That is why a bullock is offered for "his house." The
bullock is symbolic of tireless strength of our Lord Jesus, because a bull is well
known for the toughest and most demanding work. This is how we know our Lord
Jesus, yet the world will know him in the characteristics of a goat. They won't
have the maturity of understanding as do the sons of God because their
experiences will be different, especially considering their walk in the millennial
age. The goat shows the sanctifying effect* that his death has upon them. The
subject of animals and the intended meaning is too large to deal with here but the
contrast is best appreciated by having two animals show Jesus' death.
Question #2
LEV 16:6 And Aaron shall offer his bullock of the sin offering, which is
for himself, and make an atonement for himself, and for his house.
* Still researching.
1 CO 3:16 Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit
of God dwelleth in you?
JOH 14:23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will
keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him,
and make our abode with him.
2 CO 6:16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye
are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them,
and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
1JO 4:13 Hereby know we that we dwell in him, and he in us, because he
hath given us of his Spirit.
1 PE 4:17 For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of
God: and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not
the gospel of God?
Question #3
Why have two goats for one sin offering for the people?
LEV 16:20-22 And when he hath made an end of reconciling the holy place,
and the tabernacle of the congregation, and the altar, he shall bring the live
goat: And Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live goat, and
confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their
transgressions in all their sins, putting them upon the head of the goat,
and shall send him away by the hand of a fit man into the wilderness: And
the goat shall bear upon him all their iniquities unto a land not inhabited:
and he shall let go the goat in the wilderness.
2 Goats = 1 Sin offering -- There are two facts stated in this passage that are not
discussed much by Bible Students. One being that the two goats are offered as
one sin offering. The second is that although the Lord's goat is for/because of the
people, its main function is to cleanse the sanctuary or holy place(Note:- The
sacrifice of the Bullock here did not cleanse the sanctuary but only the Goat).
Without a cleansed sanctuary no atonement ministry can be done even if the
people are personally atoned for. God's first concern is not for the personal sins of
the people but for a way to access his people. It is the blood of Jesus that cleanses
the anti typical tabernacle. Without the death of Jesus, God will/cannot dwell
amongst his people. This fact seems far more important than the removal of our
sins because his sanctuary is not able to receive sinners. The work of the second
goat shows the second aspect of Jesus' death on the cross. He died as an offering
for the people and for the sanctuary, providing a way for God to reach man and
for man to approach God. How beautiful is this picture of man's recovery. Let's
further investigate these aspects individually.
Aspect #2 of Jesus death as a sin offering, “For God and His Sanctuary* "
* It is interesting that God should start out the scene with mentioning the death of Aaron's two
sons. They had defiled the sanctuary with their strange fire. Thus the need for the Lord's goat.
JOH 12:27 Now is my soul troubled; and what shall I say? Father, save
me from this hour: but for this cause came I unto this hour.
JOH 12:28 Father, glorify thy name. Then came there a voice from
heaven, saying, I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again.
Aspect #3 of Jesus death as a sin offering, “For the Sins of the People"
LEV 16:10,20-22 But the goat, on which the lot fell to be the scapegoat,
shall be presented alive before the LORD, to make an atonement with
him, and to let him go for a scapegoat into the wilderness. And when he
hath made an end of reconciling the holy place, and the tabernacle of the
congregation, and the altar, he shall bring the live goat: And Aaron shall
lay both his hands upon the head of the live goat, and confess over him all
the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions in
all their sins, putting them upon the head of the goat, and shall send him
away by the hand of a fit man into the wilderness: And the goat shall bear
upon him all their iniquities unto a land not inhabited: and he shall let go
the goat in the wilderness.
The second goat removes 3 important stains from the souls of the people:
iniquities, transgressions, and sins. Who but Jesus could remove this ugliness
from the people? Not another soul could, nor is it necessary for any other
death(s) for any reason. He who was sinless was made sin on our behalf. God
cursed him in the flesh to save you and me. Who else but Jesus could accomplish
all this on God's behalf as well as our behalf?
Question #3
We ask them further how they understand the statement that the High Priest
offered sacrifice first for his own sins? Did our Lord Jesus have sins of his which
needed a sacrifice? Was he not holy, harmless and undefiled?
Answer #3*
An answer to this question can easily be found in the Tabernacle Shadows itself:
Hebrews 13:10-15
HEB 13:10-15 We have an altar, whereof they have no right to eat which
serve the tabernacle. For the bodies of those beasts, whose blood is
brought into the sanctuary by the high priest for sin, are burned without
the camp. Wherefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people with
his own blood, suffered without the gate. Let us go forth therefore unto
him without the camp, bearing his reproach. For here have we no
continuing city, but we seek one to come. By him therefore let us offer the
* Although this author does not care for this explanation and is still researching for a better one,
this answer at least appeases the question 3.
Hebrews chapter thirteen is probably most often quoted as proof of the church
being represented in the sin offering and no examination of the arguments would
be complete without these scriptures. Every Bible Student is familiar with this
context and most are fully convinced that (more from 'training experiences for
the priesthood' than from critical examination of scriptures concerning the sin
offering) the author is speaking of the church being represented by the animals.
What are the reasons for drawing this conclusion? Because of the interpretation
of verse thirteen; "Let us go forth unto him without the camp, bearing his
reproach." Is the verse saying; "Since we are also represented in the sin offering of
the tabernacle, let us also be burned outside the camp like Jesus was" or is it
another way of expressing "Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our
faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the
shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God. For consider
him that endured such contradiction of sinners against himself, lest ye be
wearied and faint in your minds." When we break down this verse there are 2
items to contemplate:
1. Going to him.
2. Bearing his reproach.
Does going to him mean we are to be sacrificed like he was or are we to ponder
what he accomplished on the cross? Certainly we can see Jesus' death at Calvary
as "outside the camp" or away from the face of God. We need to always go to him
at this place (in our mind's eye) to consider the lofty consequences of that scene.
Does bearing his reproach mean being destroyed as he was or suffering hardship
for naming the name of Christ? It could easily mean that we must suffer
persecution for his name's sake.
ROM 8:17 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with
Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified
together.
GAL 6:12 As many as desire to make a fair shew in the flesh, they
constrain you to be circumcised; only lest they should suffer persecution
for the cross of Christ.
PHI 1:29 For unto you it is given in the behalf of Christ, not only to
believe on him, but also to suffer for his sake;
2 TIM 3:12 Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer
persecution.
Colosians 1:24.
COL 1:24 Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up that
which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body's sake,
which is the church:
Here is the other scripture that is often used to support that the church is
part of the sin offering. Indeed it should be pointed out that we do fill up the
afflictions that Christ left behind. Exactly who are these afflictions for? The
church. Now the question that should be asked is "are we a sin offering for each
other?" I personally don't know of anyone who believes this. This passage may or
may not correctly be applied to the millennial age but there is no basis for doing
so by the context. This text is certainly a beautiful example of our priestly training
but to make conclusions beyond this is speculation. May we all rejoice as did Paul
for any suffering we have on behalf of our brethren!
There has always been controversy over the meaning of "skirts" in this
psalm. The disagreement is whether the anointing oil ran down to the skirts
around Aaron's feet, or the hem (neckline) of his garment. Many explanations
and Hebrew definitions are brought forth to substantiate one position or the
other. However searching for a definition is not needed because the psalmist
explains by using the analogy of the dew on Mount Hermon. The anointing of
Aaron is likened to the dew of Hermon that is created from the snow cap on top
of the mountain. This frees us to draw the conclusion: since only the head of
Mount Hermon was covered, only the head of Aaron was covered. The focus upon
this psalm has been the body of Aaron when it would seem the psalmist is
drawing attention to unity of brethren because of the head. The head of Aaron is
the focal point of the psalm drawing the unity of brethren to the showering of
blessing from Christ himself.
This little paper is far from being comprehensive when considering all
possible scriptures, especially in the letter to the Hebrews. The intent was to look
at how conclusions can be and are drawn. No doubt there are other scriptures
that need to be considered. The intent was to provoke our reasoning on why we
draw conclusions and possible incorrect assumptions (which everyone does). My
hope is that we may all see our Lord Jesus as clearly as possible and that
fellowship will be based on him above all. My prayer is that his body may not be
divided by "camps of thought" such as this subject and that we can objectively
and unemotionally discuss "controversial" subjects while still loving each other as
Jesus does us.
-----------
"Disagreement is refreshing when two people lovingly desire to compare views to
find out the truth"
"religious controversy does only harm. It destroys humble inquiry after truth, and
throws all one's energies in an attempt to prove oneself right...a spirit in which no
one gets the truth."
Author(s) unknown
1 JO 4:18 There is no fear (5401) in love; but perfect love casteth out fear:
because fear hath torment (2851). He that feareth is not made perfect in love.
Strong's Reference Number: 5401
Derivation:
Transliteration and Definition:
phobos
alarm; fright
Rev Changes
Letter
A Added: Table title "A", 1st paragraph on page 4 to clarify Table A,
footnote on page 9, quotes at end, 1 Jo 4:18
Changed: Made grammatical corrections, Table reformatted and
updated to clarify obvious confusion,
B Changed: Made spelling corrections, Table given a description and
updated to clarify obvious confusion, added questions after Table
A.