Yom Kippur 2 - Hebrews 9:15-28

9:15-17 - There’s an important note here, the JST replaces all the words “testament” in verses 15-20 to “covenant.” This is nice for me because I associate the word “testament” with a written or verbal statement and here we are discussing the old vs. the new law. Because Christ is the one who’s actually able to save us through his atonement, “he is the mediator of the new covenants.” He’s the one who performed the atonement, he’s the one who experienced all our pains and suffering, so he is actually the only person qualified to stand between us and Heavenly Father and decide both justice and mercy. Because he’s the one and only person ever to exist who knows when both are satisfied. There is an analogy that Paul makes that has to do with a legal agreement where a man, or “testator” must die because “a testament is of force after men are dead.” The IM quotes Bruce R. McConkie as describing the legal definition of “testator,” which is ‘one who leaves a valid will or testament at his death.” If we think about Christ leaving a will for us with the thing he left us being salvation, Paul shows another way to understand that “Christ had to die to bring salvation. The testament or covenant of salvation came in force because of the atonement worked out in connection with that death. Christ is the Testator. His gift, as would be true of any testator, cannot be inherited until his death. Christ died that salvation might come.” I think about why Paul says this, why he makes this comparison and what message it sent to these Jewish Christian converts he’s addressing. By showing how Christ fulfilled the temple ordinances as the greatest high priest with the sacrifice of his own blood, he’s assuring them that no one could have been saved without Christ’s death. Also Jesus being the last sacrifice that fulfills the law, Paul’s demonstrating that this has always been the plan. Like when someone leaves a will when they die, they have that planned and prepared in advance. I guess what I got out of this the most was the fact that Christ’s death on the cross at the hands of the Romans was always the plan. Reading some of these books about Paul, I feel like I got the understanding that crucifixion was a humiliating and shameful way to die. I mean, Christ’s death might have been foretold from the beginning of time, but it was so sudden that even the disciples that had lived with him for 3 years didn’t see it coming until he was literally and completely dead. It probably would have been easy for Jewish converts to see Christ’s death as case in point for why he couldn’t have been the Messiah. He couldn’t even fend off the Romans when they wanted to kill him, how could he be the all-powerful God of the universe? But if His death at that exact time in that exact circumstance was always the end game, and here’s why it makes sense through the scriptures, then that would be a bit more convincing. 9:18-22 - Not only did Christ have to shed his own blood for the atonement, but even in the Levitical ordinances blood played a critical role. Paul recounts Exodus 24:7 which tells of Moses reading “the book of the covenant” to the people and them replying “All that the Lord hath said will we do, and be obedient.” So it seems that this is the people making a covenant with the Lord to be obedient, and the ordinances instated at that time focused heavily around blood and death. Paul recounts that Moses “took the blood of calves and of goats” and sprinkled it everywhere, like on books, the tabernacle, the “vessels of the ministry,” and we know the altar, it must have been a mess in there. Paul makes an interesting statement in verse 22 saying, “And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.” I’ve thought about the atonement and blood and death and even at one point thought that maybe the price of our sins was paid for by the amount of the Savior’s blood that was spilled. I don’t necessarily think that anymore, I think the blood during the atonement was a byproduct of his suffering, but it was visibly the most obvious part. Plus all the torture and nailed to the cross and then being wounded in the side, was a very bloody affair, and Jesus did legitimately have to die which can be symbolized by blood as well. Do I think that the atonement was only accomplished because Jesus bled? No, I don’t feel that we are saved by Jesus’ blood specifically, but that his blood is a representation of the atonement. So if blood isn’t the mechanism of salvation, why did it play such a critical part of the ancient Mosaic ordinances? And again, I think it goes back to the blood being the most visible part of the process. Because what else could the priests have used? Could they have tried to feel the lives and sins and suffering of all the people? No, that’s not possible, even for the most empathetic of us. Maybe it’s because we are so far removed from blood in the society where we live. I work in medicine so I deal with blood pretty regularly, but most people in developed countries really don’t. Anciently, blood was almost certainly a daily experience. People bleeding, animals bleeding, plus people killed their own animals for food, made promises to each other with blood, the term “blood brothers” comes to mind. The loss of an animal to sacrifice was probably a bigger deal to the people than the actual slaughter part, because they were going to have to do that anyway. Living so much closer to where their food came from and dealing with death and disease so much more frequently and personally, incorporating blood into religious ordinances was probably much more meaningful anciently than it would be today. The IM comments, “Blood is symbolic of life… The blood of animals ratified the old covenant, foreshadowing the shedding of Jesus Christ’s blood that ratified the new covenant and made the remission of sins possible. The blood of goats had been shed for centuries to ritually cleanse and sanctify the people… The Savior ‘was once offered to bear the sins of many,’ and this was the only true sacrifice.” The article on this chapter from gospeldoctrine.com suggests that the “testator” analogy has a lot to do with Jesus as a martyr. 9:23-28 - All the blood being shed anciently in this Mosaic ordinances was therefore “patterns of things in the heavens.” I know that this whole time we’ve been talking about the Law of Moses being preparatory to Christ’s atonement, but after reading just how in depth it was as far as who can go where and when, what the sacrificial animal had to look like and be born and raised, what the different relics symbolized, where the blood was sprinkled, etc. After all of that, associating the Mosaic rituals with Christ’s atonement is so much more powerful. And to think, we’ve had 2,000+ years to analyze all this and figure it out, but Paul did it during his lifetime and with only the Spirit to teach him. Kind of like how Joseph Smith learned so much about the eternities and the spiritual and even the earth and science, all by the Spirit. It brings me hope that I can keep learning throughout my life, regardless of my ability access “higher education.” And it definitely validates the knowledge and understanding that comes through the Spirit as opposed to the “teachers” of the world. One big difference between Yom Kippur and Christ’s atonement is that Yom Kippur was held every year, and when Jesus sacrificed himself for us, it only had to happen once, and not only just once, but as the last great sacrifice for all.