Thursday: The New-Covenant Priest
The book of Hebrews places a heavy emphasis on Jesus as our High Priest in the heavenly sanctuary. In fact, the clearest exposition of the new covenant found in the New Testament appears in the book of Hebrews with its emphasis on Christ as High Priest. This is no coincidence. Christ’s heavenly ministry is intricately tied to promises of the new covenant.
Image © Lars Justinen from GoodSalt.com
The Old Testament sanctuary service was the means by which the old-covenant truths were taught. It centered around sacrifice and mediation. Animals were slain, and their blood was mediated by the priests. These, of course, were all symbols of the salvation found only in Jesus. There was no salvation found in them in and of themselves.
Read Hebrews 10:4. Why is there no salvation found in the death of these animals? Why is the death of an animal not sufficient to bring salvation?
All these sacrifices, and the priestly mediation that accompanied them, met their fulfillment in Christ. Jesus became the Sacrifice upon which the blood of the new covenant is based. Christ’s blood ratified the new covenant, making the Sinaitic covenant and its sacrifices “old” or void. The true sacrifice had been made, once and for all (Hebrews 9:26). Once Christ died, there was no more need for any animals to be slain. The earthly sanctuary services had fulfilled their function.
ReadMatthew 27:51, which tells how the veil in the earthly sanctuary was torn when Jesus died. How does that event help us to understand why the earthly sanctuary had been superseded?
Tied, of course, to these animal sacrifices was the priestly ministry, those Levites who offered and mediated the sacrifices in the earthly sanctuary on behalf of the people. Once the sacrifices ended, the need for their ministry ended, as well. Everything had been fulfilled in Jesus, who now ministers His own blood in the sanctuary in heaven (see Hebrews 8:1-5). Hebrews stresses Christ as High Priest in heaven, having entered by shedding His own blood (Hebrews 9:12), mediating in our behalf. This is the foundation of the hope and promise we have in the new covenant.
| How does it make you feel, understanding that, even now, Jesus is ministering His blood in heaven on your behalf? How much confidence and assurance does that give you regarding salvation? |
(25)
It is worth reading some Jewish literature to understand their mindset about sacrifices. It is more complex than merely sacrificing because you have sinned. Those of you have time may like to read:
https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/sacrifices-and-offerings-karbanot
There are three aspects that Jews consider important:
Our Christian (Adventist) perspective often focuses on the idea that Christ replaced the sacrificial system with his own sacrifice and priestly mission and while I am not disagreeing with that idea, I wonder how we would consider we relate to the three principles listed above. That is not meant to be a criticism, but it provides a background for discussion and enlarging our view of Christ's ministry for us and the way it impacts on our lives.
Thank you for sharing that. It helps show the focus that we have maybe lost in the process. The main idea of coming closer; or what we would call relationship is a key factor.
I like it.Perhaps we can appreciate that Christ gave His life for us; substituting His blood for the blood of animals so that we can have a closer relationship through redemption. Let not His sacrifice be in vain.
Sure, I'll take a look...
First, Jesus did not "replace" the system of types, He fulfilled the promise these types foretold of the One who would give His life for sinners, that they might receive forgiveness and Life. Yes, His death ended the need of animal sacrifices by which believers demonstrated their faith in the promised One. The fact that the Jews continued with these sacrifices after Jesus' death only demonstrates unbelief. If permission could be found to rebuild the temple which many are expecting to be rebuilt, these sacrifices would be continued today!
Second, I question the merit in studying the literature of those whom Jesus described as "teaching for doctrine the commandments of men"(Talmud, korban, etc). I wonder(since I don't yet have time to read further into it) if they accept Jesus as the fulfillment or not? If not, what could we expect to find in this that is in agreement with Truth? The types were not understood correctly by the Jews in Jesus' day, but were seen as what THEY gave as a way to "appease an angry God".
In the third paragraph(from the link you supplied) it refers to "giving" what one owns as an offering. Doesn't this oppose the truth that Abraham prophesied(unwittingly) that "God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering"(Gen 22:8), just as we read in John 3:16 that God "gave His only begotten Son"? So there is nothing we own whereby we give to God, who owns "the cattle on a thousand hills", which man cares for as a steward. If we don't see everything in our life, including life, as a gift from God, we cannot understand the covenant properly. We bring nothing but faith in the promise by our confession and repentance. That's it.
Browsing further...there seems to be a limit of which sins are atoned, while Jesus taught that "all manner of sin" would be forgiven. The only condition is repentance.
The views of this document, as I understand it, explains the rejection of Jesus by the Jewish nation of His day. For example, the part on the Parah Adumah(Numbers 19) is very revealing isn't it? It states that this ritual is "beyond human understanding"! If find this sad to read. Does God teach truth to fallen man with rituals "beyond human understanding"(Daniel 12:10)?
All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness. 2Tim 3:6-7; Rom 15:4; 2Peter 1:20-21
I notice in studying Leviticus about the various sacrifices in the sanctuary it mentions peace or fellowship offerings and I wondered why they were bringing such offerings, this is what I discovered.
Thanks for the enlightenment. Personally I think Christ's ministry meets the three aspects of giving, substitution and coming closer. First of all like John 3:16 says God gave His only begotten son, thus fulfilling the aspect of giving, secondly like you've already stated Christ sacrifice substituted the sacrificial system of using animals. This meets the second aspect substitution. And finally as Christ said "if I be lifted among men will draw all men to myself".... Christ was lifted on the cross that we will be reconciled to God and come closer to Him and God.
I took a few minutes to read the article and it seems to confirm that the Jews did not understand and still don’t understand what we are being saved from. It’s sad that they completely missed the point of what God was showing them and the entire world. We are not being saved from individual sins, whether intentional, unintentional, devious or whatever. We are being saved from sin not sins.
Anyway, it was interesting to read and informative, but it just seems sad that even today there is a large group of Jews that are prepared to rebuild that temple so they can begin their rituals and keep looking for the messiah.
It is interesting to note that the KJV says Jesus entered the Holy place, but NKJV says He entered the most Holy place... If he entered the most Holy place in the time of the writer of Hebrews, then He couldn't enter in 1844?
Any comments?
Good observation Louis! I think this article I wrote a couple years ago may answer your question or at least provide an explanation. https://ssnet.org/blog/why-its-good-to-use-multiple-bible-translations/
When I preach a sermon in English, which is the only language I can preach in, and I had three people translating it into Spanish, each one would translate it differently.
To get the big picture you would not choose one translation and throw the rest away. You would put all three together to get the big picture. Likewise I do not think it is wise to try to find one perfect Bible translation. I think it is wise to examine several to get the big picture. for example, in my personal Bible study time this morning I ran across this passage in the New Living Translation.
With his own blood—not the blood of goats and calves—he entered the Most Holy Place once for all time and secured our redemption forever. Hebrews 9:12 NLT
I thought that makes it sound like Jesus was already in the Most Holy Place before 1844. I remembered hearing someone before reference this verse trying to destroy the Adventist understanding of the sanctuary. So I thought, in the spirit of the Bereans, I need to check this out. I quickly found that the KJV does not say “Most Holy Place” in this verse. It only says “Holy Place.”
Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us. Hebrews 9:12 KJV
Now I must remember the KJV is also a “version.” The KJV is not the original manuscripts. The KJV is an extremely reliable version, but it does not automatically trump all other versions on every text. Having translated messages in ASL and having had studies translated for me from English to Spanish, I understand what all translators understand, that no translation is 100% accurate. This includes the KJV. So I did a little more research and found that even the NKJV, which is a highly esteemed version did indeed use the phrase” Most Holy Place,” not “Holy Place.” This caused me to research even further. I found that The Message translates it this way.
But when the Messiah arrived, high priest of the superior things of this new covenant, he bypassed the old tent and its trappings in this created world and went straight into heaven’s “tent”—the true Holy Place—once and for all. Hebrews 9:11-12 MSG
This was an aha! moment for me. The word being translated “most” in other translations except for the KJV actually meant “true” or real. This makes perfect sense and is understandable why so many would translate it ‘most.” The context of Hebrews 8- 9 is not about when Jesus went into the most holy place, but rather that Jesus went into a real and literal sanctuary
There he ministers in the heavenly Tabernacle, the true place of worship that was built by the Lord and not by human hands. Hebrews 8:2 NLT
See! There is the word “true” in the NLT. Hebrews 9:12 is saying that Jesus went into a real and true sanctuary. The word “most” in the other translations is not an unfortunate translation, when you understand by “most” it is comparing the heavenly sanctuary to the earthy sanctuary, instead of comparing the most holy and holy compartments.
There are conspiracy theorists who see modern translations as a plot to destroy Adventist theology. I say if the KJV is the only version that supports our theology then we better re-examine our theology! I believe sound theology will be supported by various versions, and I believe the sanctuary message can be supported by various translations.
“I saw that God had especially guarded the Bible, yet when copies of it were few, learned men had in some instances changed the words, thinking that they were making it more plain, when in reality they were mystifying that which was plain, by causing it to lean to their established views, which were governed by tradition. But I saw that the Word of God, as a whole, is a perfect chain, one portion linking into and explaining another. True seekers for truth need not err; for not only is the Word of God plain and simple in declaring the way of life, but the Holy Spirit is given as a guide in understanding the way to life therein revealed.” -Ellen White, Early Writings, Pages 220,-221
The first point I appreciate about this passage is that Ellen White understood errors were made with the best of intentions instead of a conspiracy plot. I am sure when the comma was misplaced in the KJV in Luke 23:43, it was with the best of intentions. The second point I appreciate is that the Holy Spirit has protected the Word of God so that the way to life will not be lost, and the Holy Spirit can help us find truth in the different translations we read.
When I preach a sermon in English, if three people translated it into Spanish, each one would translate it differently. To get the big picture of what I was saying, you would not choose one translation and throw the rest away. You would put all three together to get the best picture. Likewise I do not think it is wise to try to find one perfect Bible translation. I think it is wise to examine several to get the big picture.
That what iam asking too
In the sanctuary the priests took the blood of the sacrifices into the Holy Place on behalf of the ordinary person because he was not allowed into God's presence. In Leviticus it is repeated over and over again "and the priest shall make atonement for him before the LORD and he shall be forgiven for his sins." Today's study guide says "the blood was mediated by the priest". What does mediate mean?
According to the dictionary - Mediate means to help to settle a dispute or create agreement when there is conflict between two or more people or groups by acting as an intermediary or go-between for those parties. A person who acts as an intermediary or go-between in this way can be called a mediator.
We no longer have to confess our sins by laying our hands on the head of an animal in front of a priest and slitting its throat so the priest could catch the blood to take it into the presence of God. Because now we have direct access to God the Father through Jesus who intercedes for us
Heb 7:25, Heb 8:1, Hebrews 4:16.
But why do we need a mediator? The Good News is that Jesus is not reconciling God to us but rather it is God reconciling us to Him through Jesus Christ.
2Cor 5:18-21, Rom 4:21-5:2
Shirley, I found some things you said in your post stimulating and I'd like to highlight and expand on some of the things you said.
In the first paragraph of your post, you pointed out the repetitive sentence, "and the priest shall make atonement for him before the LORD and he shall be forgiven for his sins", found mostly between Leviticus 4 and 5. You also stated, "...the priests took the blood of the sacrifices into the Holy Place on behalf of the ordinary person because he was not allowed into God's presence." I'm curious regarding what you meant by "God's presence"?
I'm going to assume that you were referring to the Most Holy place where the Ark of the Covenant resided with the symbolic representation of "God's presence" (Ex 25:22). If my assumption is correct, then I want to point out that not even the priests were "allowed in God's presence"--except the high priest and once each year (Lev 16:2,29). Why?
Well, I believe that sin IN US separates us from God (Isa 59:1-2; 53:6), but as a tangible statement of God's commitment to us, the Tabernacle was there to maintain "God's presence" with sinners--for the benefit of sinners, including the priests'.
I loved your use of Heb 7:25 along with 2 Cor 5:18-21, as the former unmistakably establishes the NT High Priest, while the latter establishes Him collaborating with a group of humans! Peter, the apostle who wrote some things about the priesthood of the NT believer (1 Pt 2:5,9), was himself a good example. Called by the High Priest to be one of His twelve Apostles (Mt 4:18-19), Peter is recorded as a dedicated but impetuous, know-it-all who receives one of the harshest rebukes of the Twelve from the High Priest (Mt 16:23). However, after a purification process, he is specifically commissioned by the High Priest (Jn 21:17). So later, we see Peter engaged in his authorized co-mediatorial duty in Acts 10. He is not his pre-purification self, but he's also not without flaw (Act 10:28). Despite this, he clearly receives Divine leadership (Act 10:19-20) in the performance of his co-mediatorial ministry for Cornelius' benefit (Act 10:33; Zech 8:23; Mal 2:7).
Acts 10 is a beautiful unfolding of the of the text (2 Cor 5:18-21) you quoted in your post, as it demonstrates how the priest and the penitent are both benefited when they operate within the confines of the "place" of God's presence (2 Cor 6:16; 1 Cor 3:16-17). Thanks for your stimulating contribution!
Maurice, thanks for the link, it‘s worth reading.
I deduct the following: Our sacrifice as Christians is the equivalent of our daily prayers which should include the need to coming close to God, praising Him and giving gratitude, asking for forgiveness of sins both known or unawares and finally intercession prayers for others, since our faith is not just about us.
I like today lesson because it compares Christ's ministry in the New Testament and the priests of the Old Testament (OT). For a better understanding, read Hebrews 7 - 10 and you will get the big picture. It is amazing to understand that Jesus as High Priest also represents every instrument in the sanctuary.
In Hebrews 7:23, Paul stated that the priest could not remain in office permanently because they died. However, we have a High Priest who is Eternal and He does not have to offer sacrifice for Himself. It was one of the differences between the Old Covenant and the New one. Lastly, Jesus can read our minds while the OT priests could not read the people mind.
In conclusion, we need to accept His sacrifice and He will transform us. Paul stated in Hebrews 4:16, "Let us therefore come boldly to the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy and find grace to help in time of need." Let us think God for providing for us even though we do not deserve it.
‘Jewish Practices & Rituals’ – “Karbanot”: The word Karbanot comes from the root Qof-Resh-Bet, which means “to draw near”, and indicates the primary purpose of offerings: to draw us near to G-d [God]. (Jewish Virtual Library)
This reference informs me that their ritualistic practices were attempting to bring man ‘nearer’ to God by using man’s works! But the Creator seeks man to worship Him in Spirit and Truth - John4:23KJV – becoming one with Him in His Spirit and Truth by Faith.
I do not think that man’s works can ever draw him near to God! Works, no matter how well intended, are still man’s works. Even when they are based on the Laws of God, in and by themselves they remain ‘works’ – they remain only physical.
It is the Holy Spirit’s specifically assigned duty to transform the heart and mind of man as he/she lives by the Word/Work and Light of God by faith - only he can bring humankind closer to God to worship Him in Spirit and Truth – John14:11-21KJV.
And now, with God having written His Law/Way onto our heart and mind, the Holy Spirit brings about the changes quicker.
This shows that the power to become ‘one’ lays in the spiritual aspect of ‘work’ - its motive. Faith and love from/for God need to be the spiritual aspects present as we do these ‘works’! These 'works' are not ritualistic or law-based works, these works are motivated by the believe that the ‘work of/by faith’, God’s type of ‘good works’, are releasing/doing the spiritual transformational work in us as we do them, and through us to others who so benefit from these works/actions/behavior.
Eph.2:10KJV - ”For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained[prepared] that we should walk in them”.
We live/exist/work as a new creation/creature/person, and this born-again person desires to live according to the Will of God.
God only desires/requires of us the motivation of Love, Mercy and Justice, and for us to walk humbly with our God - Mica6:8KJV. It is He that does all the heavy lifting - the moving of the Spirit to do the transformational work in our spiritual and physical lives. We present our body as a living sacrifice for His spirit to do the work in us as we walk/live by faith the Father’s Way of Life and Light – Rom12:1KJV.
This is the only 'work' the Father asks of His children and it is accomplished through the Spirit.
The Father called His Son back to Heaven after His Spirit’s work was completed. He honored His Son’s Love and commitment by elevating Him to sit at His Right Hand, giving Him the power to save humanity through His living Faith - His Son’s Faith to be the life-giving blessing for all humanity.
Those who live by His Son’s Faith, overcoming doubt and self-reliance/self-will as they live the Way of Truth and Light, will obtain - Life-everlasting -!
Maurice I just want to thank you and all the participants of the Sabbath School Net community. I really appreciate all of your inspiring insight on each lesson this one in particular because the link you gave for Jewish ritual and why they are so important to them helped me to understand why they do certain rituals for different offerings and sacrifices. They are interesting because they have rituals to get closer to God and their sacrifices are not for sin only there are rituals for giving and substitution also. I was amazed by their practices when I was reading them because I thought about Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and the twelve tribes. If my question is correct, were these the practices of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and the twelve tribe too? I did see some dates with CE behind them but I don't know how to match dates up to Biblical timelines but I'm gonna share this link because I believe that I should have the same attitude about keeping my part of God's covenant with me because I'm learning that God's covenant is an individual agreement between God and me.
The article I referred to was a sort of encyclopaedic article summarising Jewish practice. I don't think it deals with the change in thinking and practice throughout history. We know that somewhere along the line the sacrificial system migrated from essential a family activity to a national activity. I think that the exodus period was where the practice was probably formalised and codified as a temple practice. Much of the description in the article is based on the instruction provided in the Torah - mainly Exodus, Leviticus and Deuteronomy.
My main purpose in providing the article was to acquaint readers with the other aspects of the sacrificial system that we tend to overlook. That does not diminish the type/antitype link with salvation that is the focus of our study of the covenants, but it does broaden our understanding.
I was disappointed to see the lesson author miss something fundamentl when he wrote
I have always understood, and I still believe it is correct that the sanctuary services were part of the "new covenant" that predates the "Old Covenant." In fact, the "new covenant" is the only covenant God ever offered. In it, He promises to be our God, if we will accept Him as Lord. This is restoration to the original Eden relationship.
The writer of Hebrews makes clear what constitutes the "old covenant" in Heb 8:6, which the author inexplicably skipped in references to the passage. Here is the key to the "old covenant" versus the "new covenant": The "new covenant" was based on "better promises" - that is, God's promises. What made the covenant at Sinai "old" is that the people presumptuously promised to "keep" the covenant, without faith. (See Rom 9:31-32)
God instituted the sanctuary services *after* the people rashly promised to keep His covenant without faith. Then, when the people recognized their helplessness and need, God gave them a sandbox illustration of the plan of salvation - a way to fix their faith on the coming Messiah who would perfectly fulfill man's part of the covenant and whose perfect life would be imputed to them.
Calling these services "old covenant" destroys their significance OR gives the impression that God had different plans for salvation in the "Old Testament" than in the "New Testament" - that there were different "dispensations" to save humanity. Seventh-day Adventists categorically reject dispensationalism, and that's why I was shocked to see this suggestion of the sanctuary services being "old-covenant" in our lesson.
By the time the letter to the Hebrews was written, *any* practice of the sanctuary services was "old covenant," not only because by the time of Christ, most people had forgotten that the services all pointed forward to Christ, but also because Christ had come and fulfilled all the types of the sanctuary services. The only reasons to engage in these services then was a) the belief that there was saving virtue in the sacrifices or b) cultural practices (as in the keeping of the festivals). The writer of Hebrews wrote in this context, and that explains some of the language.
The problem is the NT frequently distinguishes between the old and new covenants. Mashing them together does not do justice to this fact. Christians were never a part of the old covenant in any sense, and Jews can be part of the New covenant. Its not about "dispensations" but cultural accommodation.
I have always understood, and I still believe it is correct that the sanctuary services were part of the "new covenant" that predates the "Old Covenant." In fact, the "new covenant" is the only covenant God ever offered. In it, He promises to be our God, if we will accept Him as Lord. This is restoration to the original Eden relationship.
Thank you for this Inge. I agree that the lesson completely missed this very important distinction between the old covenant (mankind's promises to God) and the new covenant (God's promises to mankind). I would add that God promised not only to be our God, He also promised to save (justify) us and change (sanctify) us... if only we believe Him (John 3:16).
Happy Sabbath.
Must I be a theologian to interpret the Bible? This confusion of saying I must know Greek is a lie. There are some truths where those who reject the sanctuary message confuse with people. The Bible and the Spirit of Prophecy are clear that there were three places in the sanctuary. Outer court, Holy Place and Most Holy Place. Jesus entered Holy Place when He entered heaven as the earthly priests could do and later which was in 1844, He entered The Most Holy Place. He could not go directly as these new translations are saying to reject the 1844 Sanctuary message. Holy place and Most Holy place are distinct places. My question for my brother about KJV is that Why are those new translations only this with very many missing texts and changed meanings? Is it by chance really? Read Hebrews 9:12 in KJV and compare with other translations too. Please, let's not debate some of these truths.
It is true that you do not need to know Greek to interpret the Bible (New Testament), but someone had to know a fair bit of Koine Greek to translate it from the original Greek into the languages we speak today. And if you check the history of the development of the King James version you will also see the influence of the Latin (Vulgate) translation. The KJV is a very good translation, but so are the many modern translations, done by people who knew Greek.
Secondly even more important than the geolocation of the three separate compartments, or the timing, is the fact that the temple model reflects different aspects of his ministry. All these aspects are important and go beyond location and timing. We need to appreciate and understand what Christ did and does for us. That truth will stand for all eternity.
Nobody seems to have mentioned that Jesus was NOT a High Priest in the Aaronic sense, but a High Priest "after the order of Melchizedek".
All those pictures of a HP with breastplates, etc could be quite wrong. What evidence is there that Jesus wore any of this stuff? At best, we are dealing with figurative and metaphoric language.
"Now He offers His own blood in the temple in heaven"
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I think the Book of Hebrews is quite clear that Jesus offered his blood only one time, and is not continually offering it. Perhaps you can enlighten us further?
Christians were never a part of the old covenant in any sense
Whenever a person tries to save themselves by keeping the law ("works of the flesh"), they are pursuing "old covenant salvation." Sadly, there are more "Christians" attempting that now than there were in Bible days.
Old Covenant = Righteousness by works.
New Covenant = Righteousness by faith.
Sieg, I found your definitions between old and new helpful.
I think in discussions we need to be clear between the LORD's divine and grace based Covenants whether through Moses or Jeremiah and the people of Israel's misunderstanding or perversion of them. There is and never has been a divine Covenant based on works, the LORD never agreed to such a Covenant. A covenant means both parties agree to the terms, in a divine covenant the LORD sets the terms there are no negotiations, therefore when they said we will do it that was not an alternative covenant it was just a misunderstanding of the LORD's grace based Covenant, so He used the Sanctuary services to help them understand. All the divine Covenants have been subsets and progressive revelations of the Everlasting Covenant and were grace-based, gospel-bearing, faith-inducing, mission-directed.
I have found the following comments from Skip MacCarty from Andrews University very helpful in understanding and explaining the 1st and 2nd Covenants with Israel and their responses to them.
Skip MacCarty, In Granite or Ingrained?
The old and new covenants are sometimes viewed in Scripture as historical eras and sometimes as contrasting spiritual experiences – contrasting ways of relating to God and His law.
The old covenant historical era covers spiritual history before the advent of Christ, while an old covenant experience represents either rebellion against God’s law or a legalistic reliance on it as a means of achieving salvation through obedience.
The new covenant historical era covers the period of spiritual history that commenced with the advent of Christ, while a new covenant experience represents acceptance of God’s salvation by grace through faith and reliance on the Holy Spirit to write God’s law on one’s heart for the empowerment of loving obedience and faithful witness.
The covenant God made with Israel at Sinai was a grace-based, gospel-bearing, faith-inducing, mission-directed historical old covenant that bore all the DNA markers, promises/provisions of God’s description of the new covenant in Jeremiah 31:31-33 and Hebrews 8:8-12.
On the whole, Israel’s response throughout its history to the gospel proclaimed and offered in that covenant was an old covenant experience of overt disregard and disobedience on the one hand and legalistic reliance on law-keeping for salvation on the other.
It is just as possible to live in the new covenant historical era, in which we live, and experience an old covenant experience through flagrant, unrepentant disobedience to God’s law or reliance on obedience as one’s qualification for salvation.
Conversely Scripture affirms that true believers living in the old covenant historical period possessed a new covenant experience (Hebrews 11).
Shirley – thank you for providing Skip MacCarty’s comments; they express my thoughts exactly!
The purpose/goal for God’s Covenants with man is to change our heart and mind to help us know Him; their effect is to experience spiritual growth by which to know Him as our heavenly Father.
This spiritual growth leads to a closer relationship with God, and with this closer relationship will come the understanding that our God is really our Father in Heaven who made us and to whom we look for directing our ways in life.
This is what the God of the Old and the New Testament/Covenant wants to establish. He wants us to know that He is the only God who can save, that He is more than a God, that He is our heavenly Father who formed us!
All religions worship gods, but they do not claim that their god has made them in his/its/their image. Only the Christian Faith claimes this to be so. Our religion is based on the believe that we are made by the Creator God who instructs us and shows us how to conduct ourselves and the affairs of our lives according to His Will, and that He used Covenants to bring this understanding about.
This is the purpose of all Covenants – practical in application, but a spiritual experience to experience true Life!
Sieg, I would suggest this "old covenant" you describe is not from God. No one is saved by their works. The very first mention of the covenant of grace, found in Gen 3:15, describes God's work for us, but not without our acceptance and cooperation by faith.
Hi Robert. Yes, all of God's covenants, beginning with his promise in Genesis 3:15 are Divine in origin and Divine in application.
That is to say all of God's covenants are unilateral promises from God to His children (e.g., Genesis 9:13-17). Our only part in these Divine covenants is to receive them, accept them and claim the promises they contain by faith.
When God said to the Israelites I have taken you out of Egypt and saved you... You will be my people and I will be your God... I will make you a holy nation, a kingdom of priests, their response should have been Amen, let it be so. We exalt, honor, praise and surrender to the only One Who can make it so.
What did they do instead? They viewed God and His covenant as their new slave master and new rules that had to be kept in place of their old slave master and old rules in Egypt.
They viewed the covenant as they did because of unbelief(See Ps 95:8-11, Heb 3:15-4:11). Many others in the old testament were saved "by grace through faith" even from among the gentiles.
Robert - Yes, faith followes belief; you believe what God talks about and then use faith to expierence it - they were unfaifhful.
Would you consider that the Children of Israel viewed the covenant and its promisses the way they did because they -
1. either did not believe this God, or
2. thought their gods from Egypt where better equipped to meet needs they were interested in?
They seemed to be more interested in a short-term, immediate solution - looking to their short-term wellbing.
God had a long-range view in mind which takes unwavering faith to experience.
Brigitte, as I have come to understand it, the choice is very simple: God's will or mine. Eve's will was to enjoy the benefits of the forbidden fruit regardless of the warning. Israel, while freed from Egypt, were still slaves to appetite and desire. The covenant was quickly forgotten, allowing unbelief to lead them astray from God's covenant law.
Robert - yes, the choice is the believer's. When someone 'wholeheartedly' believes, this person also believes with their heart. The mind is used for evaluating cause and effect, benefit and loss, but the heart choses the relational aspect to believe because they love their redeemer who has set them free from their state of iniquity.
The believer in God's Truth does not just believe a theoretical religious dogma, the believer in Christ Jesus' ministry believes in His Way of Life. His 'Way of Life', including the mind and heart, is formed by the relationship the believer develops with their Father.
For some, this 'Way of Life' - the Will of God - stays in the head and will of the believer, for others, it moves into the heart and mind which are renewed by the Holy Spirit to want to/desire to do the Will of God; their new nature inspires/motivates/guides them to live rightly to which their will happily gives its consent.
While I share the lesson author's understanding that, "Animals were slain, and their blood was mediated by the priests. These, of course, were all symbols of the salvation found only in Jesus... Once Christ died, there was no more need for any animals to be slain. The earthly sanctuary services had fulfilled their function", we diverge thereafter.
He continues by stating, "Tied, of course, to these animal sacrifices was the priestly ministry, those Levites who offered and mediated the sacrifices in the earthly sanctuary on behalf of the people. Once the sacrifices ended, the need for their ministry ended, as well. Everything had been fulfilled in Jesus, who now ministers His own blood in the sanctuary in heaven...". I see in this statement a conundrum and conflict with "the apostles' teaching" (Act 2:42). Paul wrote that the "heavenly things themselves" (Heb 9:23) that are cleansed by "the blood of Christ" are individuals whose "conscience" is purified "to SERVE the living God" (Heb 9:14). Peter, like Paul (1 Cor 12:1,4-7), stated the diverse service of such purified individuals (1 Pt 4:10-11). However, Peter employs an OT imagery that he applies to a NT reality (1 Pt 1:1-2 (NKJV).
So, if the OT Tabernacle service had its high priest and his sons (Ex 40:12-15) ministering to the needs of God's people (Num 8:19), is it reasonable for the lesson's author to posit the concept that the NT High Priest has no sons in His service (1 Pt 2:5,9)?
On the Thursday lesson there is a quote by the author of this lesson that says, about Jesus ministering in the Sanctuary in Heaven, "..., who ministers His own blood in the Sanctuary in Heaven." Now, how does Jesus do this if He spilled His blood "Once for all" 2,000 plus or minus years ago? The reason I ask this question is that about 50 plus or minus years ago there was some literature going around in small pamphlets that said that Jesus offers His blood in "real form" in the morning and in the evening in the Heavenly Sanctuary every day just like it was done by the priests of old in the old sanctuary on earth via the slain lambs in the morning and the evening by the priests of old.
I can understand that Jesus ministers "The (merits) of the blood He spilled at Calvary in "The Heavenly Sactuary." But not His "actual and real blood now in the morning and in the evening." For even in John 6:53,54 after Jesus talks about His followers "eating His Flesh and drinking His Blood," he then in verse 63 He very clearly says that He was speaking "Spiritually, and Figuratively," when He spoke those words. So yes, Jesus ministers "The Merits of His spilled Blood," in Heaven now for us, but not His Real Blood at all anymore.