A number of years ago on the old FAIRLDS discussion board, LDS apologist, Ben McGuire discussed the tearing of the temple veil (Matt 27:51/Mark 15:38/Luke 23:45) and its significance. While no longer online, I did save his comments which I will reproduce below, as they are very useful and cogent. In response to the following question posed by an Evangelical, "I'm just wondering why it is necessary to have men as go-betweens when Christ has taken all sin upon Himself [?]," Ben wrote the following:
I don't think it can be easily characterized this way. First, it relies on a rather simplistic and naive view of temple worship in ancient Israel.
The veil wasn't a separator to prevent mankind from entering into the most holy place. It was a protection for mankind to prevent them from being destroyed by God's presence.
Men were not required as go-betweens - except when worshipping in certain places. There is a shift, historically, first, after the destruction of the Kingdom of Israel, and later, in the Babylonian assault on Judah. This results in a shrinking geographic space in which Israel as a whole (and later Judah by itself) existed. Only in the later space do we get the strict requirements to worship only at the temple. Prior to that, there were many cultic centers. Certain rules seemed to have applied to some of them - although it is certain that persons could offer burnt offerings on their own altars as long as they were outside a certain radius of a cultic center. Furthermore, early on, petitioners to God could approach the tent in the wilderness directly. In many of the sacrifices at the temple, even, the petitioner played a direct and significant role in the act of sacrifice. But we get away from the real issue.
The priests and the Levites - as a rule, played their most significant roles in the rites for all Israel and not for individuals directly. The Day of Atonement sacrifices were not specifically for individuals, but were to purify all of Israel. In these cases, the intermediaries were necessary. And this carried over into the view of Christian theology. There, we have a man acting as the ultimate mediary - and this is the way that the New Testament portrays it - note the emphasis on this point in the following two passages:
Romans 5:15 But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God's grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many!
1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,
The fact that we can directly approach God (as you put it) does not limit or negate the need for us to have a mediator between us and God. This was the role of the priests in Ancient Israel. They did not exist to separate man and God but to unite them. This can also be seen in the Exodus texts when Moses first goes to set about organizing the priesthood in Israel in the wilderness. He is told that the Lord desires to make them a kingdom of priests - but even in doing so, it does not appear to limit the need for a priesthood to be the functionaries of the tabernacle, and act as mediaries between the people and God.
I think that your approach is flawed Brent - in part because you stress the divinity of Jesus Christ, and neglect the part of the atonement that makes it valid for us - his manhood:
The veil wasn't a separator to prevent mankind from entering into the most holy place. It was a protection for mankind to prevent them from being destroyed by God's presence.
Men were not required as go-betweens - except when worshipping in certain places. There is a shift, historically, first, after the destruction of the Kingdom of Israel, and later, in the Babylonian assault on Judah. This results in a shrinking geographic space in which Israel as a whole (and later Judah by itself) existed. Only in the later space do we get the strict requirements to worship only at the temple. Prior to that, there were many cultic centers. Certain rules seemed to have applied to some of them - although it is certain that persons could offer burnt offerings on their own altars as long as they were outside a certain radius of a cultic center. Furthermore, early on, petitioners to God could approach the tent in the wilderness directly. In many of the sacrifices at the temple, even, the petitioner played a direct and significant role in the act of sacrifice. But we get away from the real issue.
The priests and the Levites - as a rule, played their most significant roles in the rites for all Israel and not for individuals directly. The Day of Atonement sacrifices were not specifically for individuals, but were to purify all of Israel. In these cases, the intermediaries were necessary. And this carried over into the view of Christian theology. There, we have a man acting as the ultimate mediary - and this is the way that the New Testament portrays it - note the emphasis on this point in the following two passages:
Romans 5:15 But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God's grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many!
1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,
The fact that we can directly approach God (as you put it) does not limit or negate the need for us to have a mediator between us and God. This was the role of the priests in Ancient Israel. They did not exist to separate man and God but to unite them. This can also be seen in the Exodus texts when Moses first goes to set about organizing the priesthood in Israel in the wilderness. He is told that the Lord desires to make them a kingdom of priests - but even in doing so, it does not appear to limit the need for a priesthood to be the functionaries of the tabernacle, and act as mediaries between the people and God.
I think that your approach is flawed Brent - in part because you stress the divinity of Jesus Christ, and neglect the part of the atonement that makes it valid for us - his manhood:
