Can I really change inside? What the Bible says about a new heart and clean conscience (Leviticus 3; James 1)

Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 1:13:00 — 50.5MB)

Subscribe: RSS

---

With all the offerings discussed in great detail, we can easily think the book of Leviticus is just a priest handbook or a barbecue manual. Rather, it’s a graphic picture of what must change inside of us when we reconnect with God: approach, cleansing, communion.

Leviticus 3 expounds on the שְׁלָמִים shelamim (“peace offerings”) come from the same root as שָׁלוֹם shalom (“peace, wholeness, well‑being”). These offerings picture drawing near. The Hebrew קָרְבָּן qorban/korban (“that which draws near,” or an offering) comes from קָרַב qarav (“to approach”). The worshiper laid a hand on the head of the animal, symboling the giving of oneself, and after that act the offering drew near to God’s presence.

Body parts as metaphors

It’s one of the Heaven-sent metaphors in Israel’s Mishkan (“dwelling place,” the tabernacle) shown to Moshe (Moses).

Leviticus names kidneys, liver, and fat repeatedly. These are symbols for the inner life — desire, conscience, moral depth.

The kidneys (Hebrew: קלַיּוֹת kelayot) function biologically to filter and regulate. In Scripture, the kidneys carry a range of meaning. The root verb כָּלָה qalah means “accomplish, cease, consume, determine, end, fail, finish.” That range fits both biological function and the spiritual metaphor of consumption or obsession.

Scripture often pairs לֵב lev (“heart”) and kelayot as the inward places God examines: Jeremiah 17:10; Psalm 26:2 and Psalm 73:21.

Psalm 16:7 in some translations renders kelayot as “mind” or inner guidance: “I will bless the Lord who has given me counsel; indeed my heart instructs me in the night” (NASB95). The kidneys rejoice when truth is spoken (Prov. 23:16). God examines inner motives and then gives each person according to deeds.

In short, the inward parts register God’s message when they are tuned rightly.

Greek and Hebrew language shift

The Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, called the Septuagint (LXX), renders kelayot as νεφροί nephroi and lev as καρδία kardia.

The book of Revelation preserves the Hebrew metaphor of heart and kidneys from the Septuagint.

Elsewhere in the New Testament the inward domain encapsulated into kelayot splits into multiple Greek words:

• νοῦς nous (“mind”)
• σπλάγχνα splachna (“inward parts, compassion, deep affections”)
• συνείδησις suneidesis (“conscience”).

The point: where Hebrew often uses a single cluster of images, Greek sometimes parses that cluster into finer parts.

Fat and full consumption

Fat in the sacrificial meal played a theological role. Fat physically and metaphorically is a sign of abundance. It also burns and produces barbecue flare‑ups. So it helps the offering burn and thus ascend and be fully consumed. The whole burnt offering in Hebrew is עֹלָה olah, “that which goes up”).

Metaphorically, the fat also can picture what fuels devotion and what accelerates a response before God. That image tied into the difference between offerings that are shared and those wholly consumed.

Peace offering versus sin offering

The shelamim offering functions as fellowship. The offering becomes a meal shared by priest and worshiper. Thus, it pictures communion.

In contrast, the חַטָּאת khattat (“sin offering”) involves removal and consumption in smoke. While the shelamim has a communal, two‑way dimension, the khattat removes what blocks communion. The khattat answers situations where someone erred unintentionally and needs restoration for reentry into God’s presence.

Two goats of Yom Kippur

Leviticus 16 details what happens on Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement. The qorbanot are two goats serving a single, complex function. One is for Adonai (the LORD) , providing covering for the people’s sins, transgressions and iniquities. One is one for Azazel (aka the scapegoat), the one that removes the impurities from the community.

Both goats must be תָּמִים tamim (“complete, unblemished”), because either can be selected by lot for each role.

What type of offering are Passover and Day of Atonement?

Rabbinic and later commentators debated how to classify the פֶּסַח Pesach (Passover) and יוֹם כִּיפוּר Yom Kippur (Day of Atonement) offerings based on function and rituals in Leviticus they best match. Debates cluster around three points:

1. Is the Pesach a shelamim (peace offering)?
2. Are the two goats of Yom Kippur a khattat (sin offering), shelamim or a mixture?
3. What theological conclusions follow about atonement, communal versus individual restoration, and messianic typology?

On Pesach, many tannaitic and later rabbinic voices note formal differences from ordinary shalomim offerings. Pesach is eaten communally, like many shelamim, but it also functions as a liturgical, protective rite (blood on doorposts) that “blocks” divine plague sent on Egypt during the Exodus. Because of that blocking/marker role, some authorities treat Pesach as having a unique legal status. They argue it is not a simple fellowship meal (shelamim) because its primary purpose in the Exodus narrative is deliverance and household protection rather than mutual sharing with the priests.

Others emphasize the shared‑meal and covenantal features and therefore place Pesach nearer to shalomim in function. In short: Pesach carries features of shelamim (communal meal, shared participation) and features unlike a typical shalomim (apotropaic blood sign, national deliverance), so rabbinic writers sometimes call it a hybrid or acknowledge it as sui generis.

Yom Kippur’s two‑goat rite generated extensive debate because Leviticus 16 presents simultaneous elements of expiation, transfer and removal, and priestly atonement. One goat (for the LORD) receives the sacrificial procedures (blood sprinkled, incense, entrance to the Holy of Holies) and thus resembles khattat and olah (whole burnt) features of atonement and covering. The other goat (la‑Azazel) bears the confessed sins and is sent away, acting as a removal or scapegoat.

Rabbinic commentators therefore wrestled with whether the pair together should be read as two halves of a single atoning ritual (a composite that includes khattat‑like covering plus scapegoat‑like removal) or as two distinct categories performed together.

Medieval rabbis (e.g., Rashi, Ramban/Nachmanides) and earlier tannaim (sages) explored these options. Some emphasized the “covering” aspect and aligned the victim offered to the LORD with khattat/olah terminology (atonement, sprinkling). Others stressed the azazel goat’s function as expulsion of impurity, aligning it with purification rites yet recognizing that expulsion is not the same as sacrificial expiation.

Many rabbis ultimately treated the two goats as complementary: both are tamim (unblemished) and part of a single day’s atonement package whose combined effect is both to cover sins before God and to remove their presence from the community.

The halakhic (traditional) consequences of these categorizations matter. If Pesach is treated as a shelamim‑type, its sacrificial rules, who may eat, and which parts are reserved for priests follow the shalomim regulations. If it is khattat, special rules (such as the household eating requirement and the paschal lamb’s exemption from priestly portions in some discussions) remain justified.

For Yom Kippur, classification affects how statutes of ritual purity, priestly service, and the effect of the ritual (covering vs. removal) get interpreted in later law and in theological exposition about the nature of atonement.

Some rabbinic writers used the duality to teach that atonement involves both God’s covering and forgiveness and the community’s need to rid itself of moral stain. Christian and medieval Jewish exegetes later read the Yom Kippur pair typologically: one element as substitutionary covering and the other as expulsion of impurity. Modern scholars often note the practical synchronicity: ancient ritual systems sometimes accomplish a single social‑theological goal via multiple complementary rites rather than by a single classificatory model.

Yeshua embodied across offerings

Some Jewish commentators have objected to teachings that Yeshua (Jesus) filled roles of multiple offerings. A big contention is that human sacrifice is anathema to the Torah. Another is that one offering can encompass multiple offering categories.

The Apostolic Writings identify Yeshua with the Lamb of Passover (John 1:29, 36), as sin‑offering imagery in Isaiah 53, and as the One who covers and removes sin as well as the special red heifer sacrifice (Hebrews 9–10). Look at the proclamation of prophet Yokhanan (John the Baptist): “Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world” (John 1:29 allusion). He also noted how the Gospels and the apostolic writers weave Passover, Firstfruits, Shavuot (Pentecost), and Sukkot (Feast of Tabernacles) imagery into the Messianic narrative.

Messianic festivals and prophetic pattern

The teacher traced how festival imagery points to the Messianic era. He mentioned the water‑pouring at Sukkot and Ezekiel’s vision of waters flowing from the sanctuary to cleanse and heal (Ezekiel 47). He tied that to John 7 (the “living water” moment in the Feast of Tabernacles) and to the idea that the Messiah pours out God’s Spirit. He presented the festivals as stages in a single story, not isolated rites.

Spiritual maturity and the goal of Tamim

A recurring word was תָּמִים tamim — “complete, mature, unblemished”). The offerings aim for Heaven to covert believers to be tamim.

Therefore be imitators of God, as beloved children; and walk in love, just as Christ also loved you and gave Himself up for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God as a fragrant aroma.

Ephesians 5:1‑2 NASB95

The offering shows the shape of maturity: love, self‑giving, and a life presented to God.

Testing, wisdom, and formation

The lesson stressed that testing refines interior life. James 1:13‑15 (alluded to in the transcript) frames temptation and birth of sin. The teacher urged listeners to ask God for wisdom when trials buffet them. He used the ship metaphor: without wisdom, a person tosses back and forth like a vessel in storms. Wisdom stabilizes the inward parts. It helps us become tamim.

Community, accountability, and discernment

Several participants emphasized practical formation. The teacher and attendees spoke about discipleship and community accountability. One person described joining groups intentionally designed to expose blind spots. The teacher affirmed Proverbs’ wisdom about openness to correction. He also warned about a seared conscience (a heart or “radio” that no longer picks up God’s signal) and stressed the need for community to help retune our kidney‑like conscience.

Tuning our inward parts

From Scripture we can glean concrete spiritual habits.

1. Seek God’s testing and ask for examination (Deut. 8:2; Psalm 26:2; 51:6; 139:23-24).
2. Ask for wisdom and discernment in trials (James 1:2-8).
3. Engage with the community of believers (Prov. 27:17; Heb. 10:25).
4. Welcome correction (John 9:40-41; Proverbs 12-15). Cultivate practices that align heart, mind and conscience so your inner parts rejoice when truth is spoken.

These are ways to become less “tossed” and more mature (James 1:4, 6-8).

Courage, balance, and embodied faith

Courage is the capacity to act despite fear. That arises when heart, mind and conscience align and when a community of believers supports us. A 20th century devotional recasting of a Mark Twain quip¹“Courage is resistance to fear, mastery of fear—not absence of fear.” Epigraph at beginning of chapter 12 of The Tragedy of Pudd’nhead Wilson; And the Comedy Those Extraordinary Twins by Mark Twain (Samuel L. Clemens), Pudd’nhead Wilson’s Calendar, American Publishing Company, New York, 1894, p. 155. Cited by Quote Investigator, Nov. 26, 2019. and purported Franklin D. Roosevelt quote²“Courage is not the absence of fear, but rather the assessment that something else is more important than fear.” says, “Courage is not the absence of fear, but the presence of God,” drawing on Joshua 1:9 and Deuteronomy 31:6.

We must balance empathy and logic to prevent both callousness to suffering and flinching from necessary intervention. Guts and kidneys are a biblical illustration that inner strength involves both feeling and discernment.

Teaching not recipe

Leviticus teaches a way of drawing close to and being before God. The sacrificial details map inner transformation. Kidneys, heart, liver and fat are metaphors for conscience, desire, moral depth and ample devotion.

The Messianic fulfillment in Yeshua gathers several offerings into one work: removal of sin, covering, and restored communion. The Mishkan pattern becomes embodied in the Messiah (John 1:14 alluded sense, “the Word became flesh and tabernacled among us” imagery).

How? We ask God for wisdom. We welcome testing. We live in accountable community. We aim to be made tamim — complete and fit to draw near.