Sabbath: Jesus, the Faithful Priest
Image © Pacific Press
Sabbath Afternoon,
Read for This Week’s Study: Hebrews 5:1–10; Genesis 14:18–20; 1 Peter 2:9; Hebrews 7:1–3; Hebrews 7:11–16, Hebrews 7:22, Hebrews 7:26.
Memory Text: “For such a High Priest was fitting for us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and has become higher than the heavens” (Hebrews 7:26, NKJV).
The gulf that existed between God and us was caused by sin. The problem was compounded because sin also implied the corruption of our nature. God is holy, and sin cannot exist in His presence; so, our own corrupted nature separated us from God, just as two magnets in the wrong orientation repel each other. In addition, our corrupted nature made it impossible for human beings to obey God’s law. Sin also involves misunderstanding. Human beings lost sight of the love and mercy of God and came to see Him as wrathful and demanding.
This week, we are going to study the amazing things the Father and the Son did to bridge that gulf. Hebrews 5-7 provides a careful analysis of Jesus’ priesthood. The author analyzes its origin and purpose (Hebrews 5:1-10) and then exhorts readers not to disregard it (Hebrews 5:11-6:8) but rather to hold fast to the assurance of hope it provides (Hebrews 6:9-20). He also explains the characteristics of His priesthood (Hebrews 7:1-10) and its implications for God’s relationship to believers (Hebrews 7:11-28). This week we will focus specifically on Hebrews 5:1-10 and Hebrews 7:1-28.
Study this week’s lesson to prepare for Sabbath, February 5.
(21)
It is probably worth remembering in any discussion about the priesthood and Jesus that the priesthood represented the work of Jesus and not the other way around.
When was the last time you carefully examined your worldview - the incredibly complex mental-map that your subconscious mind has assembled from the day you were born till the present? You mind uses your mental map 24/7 as the 'perceptual filter' through which it seeks to perceive, interpret (in an effort to try and make sense of), and then make 'decisions' regarding your reactions or responses accordingly. I don't know that anyone has estimated how many beliefs your mental map consists of - sufficient to say there are lots.
One of the things you are likely to not be aware of is that your mind assembles this mental-map across your life primarily on the basis of formation of assumptions. This is the default tendency of our mind, driven by our brain's attempt to conserve resources whilst also undertaking highly complex processes as quickly as possible. Once common example is people growing up believing they are a failure. Often, because of the way they experienced significant others treating them, as a child their mind assumed that they were the problem and therefore concluded (also based on assumption) they were a failure.
There are also many beliefs that have accumulated since the mid second century that have become embedded within the typical Christian worldview mental-map. Not surprisingly, very many of these are assumptions that have not been carefully considered. One of these is the notion of what sin is. Like darkness (which the Bible metaphorically likens sin to for excellent reasons), sin does not exist as a physical entity. Just like darkness is the absence of light, so sin is the absence of life. Sin is a principle and an associated 'state' - or more accurately 'the state of non-state'.
This is consistent with 1 John 3:4 which states that sin is, in the Greek, anomia. 'A' is a prefix meaning absence of or other than, and nomia from nomos means law. But not 'law' as in made up rules, rather, law as in a constant principle of cause-and-effect operation. What law is sin the absence of? Most broadly, sin is the absence of the cause-and-effect principle of beneficence (other-focussed love) - the essential and only viable foundation of all life (as per the combination of John 14:6; 1 John 5:12; Proverbs 14:12; Proverbs 8:36). This also harmonises with the statement that Shirley DeBeer referred to yesterday from Patriarchs and Prophets pg 52.1 "... that law by which alone it was possible for order and equity to be maintained" - with order being one of the essential necessities for true life.
Because there is only one way that life is viable, being in harmony with that way is necessary to partake of life. On the other hand, being out of harmony with that one way results in absence of life. Therefore, it is not so much that sin cannot exist in God's presence because God is so holy that sin gets 'vaporised' by His holiness like some kind of forcefield - but rather that sin is the embracing of the absence of life which results in instantaneous cessation of life and being.
Ok, so if this is true, why do 'sinners' still 'live'? And for that matter how was Satan able to be in God's presence during the time when he was present at the gathering of the 'sons of God' in Job 1:6 - even debating with God (Job 1:9-12)? This is only possible because God temporarily restrains the self-annihilation that sin inherently produces (as per Romans 6:23; Galatians 6:8; James 1:15) in order to (a) resolve the Great Controversy via transparent revelation of what sin inherently is and does and (b) provide a period of 'probation' during which all have can have a second chance if they genuinely choose to participate in such.
What I have illustrated is just one insufficiently considered assumption that has crept into Christianity. What other assumptions might have done the same thing - including assumptions related to this week's topic of Jesus as priest? (Hint: consider Maurice's suggestion above carefully).
Phil - I read your comment with interest, understanding that we as Christians are also burdened with the consequences of "insufficiently considered assumptions'. What is not clear to me, though, is what you are refering to in your last paragraph as "one insufficiently considered assumption that has crept into Christianity", and which you "have illustrated" in your comment.
I appreciate if you could be specific to help me understand you better - thank you!
Thanks Brigitte
I am as gently as possible proposing that Post-apostolic Christian tradition has not sufficiently examined the nature of sin - even though the nature of sin sits at the foundation of many of its beliefs and propositions (like the many cards that make up a multi-storey 'house of cards' sit on top of just a few vitally important 'foundational' ones). What I have attempted to illustrate is just one of the implications of an assumed but insufficiently considered (in my humble opinion) understanding of sin - the assumption that sin cannot exist within God's presence because God's holiness will destroy it. Thus, I was picking up on something the lesson referred to as an example that has arisen from a broader underpinning issue - misunderstanding the nature of sin.
People have lamented on this forum why there isn't greater depth of spirituality amongst Christian believers. Though I haven't been able to fully unpack such (because it is a big topic/issue that won't be able to be covered in a single or even a few comments), I would propose that what I am initially lifting the lid gently on is in fact a key contributing factor to the observed "form of godliness but lacking the power thereof".
I hope this may have clarified things a bit further - if not, please ask further questions.
Phil, thank you – I have no more questions. Though, based on your comment and reply, please permit me to share my observation regarding sin.
I agree with you that the ‘nature of sin’ has not been understood completely and would greatly benefit from being uncovered. I disagree with you that ‘sin cannot exist in God’s presence’ as it relates to humans sinning. I want to qualify it saying that, unless it is a continuous, willful and deliberate act of self-will against the known Will of God, incomplete/imperfect man can still live in Christ Jesus, coverd by His Righteousness when coming in the presence of God the Father seeking help in the Lord's 'name'(righteousness).
The dictionary defines sin as: “an immoral act considered to be a transgression against divine law.” Could Rom.3:23 be translated in the present tens – “all sin and fall short of the Glory of God”? Because ‘sinning’ is part of human nature, the Son of God, our Creator, came and showed mortal man the Way of Redemption to escape this dilemma. His Way reveals that the Father's Will is based on His Love for us - therefore making it the known, new Law, encouraging us to walk this Way by faith!
Yes, the not yet born-again believer displays a ‘form of godliness but lacks the power thereof’ because, in my opinion, God’s re-creative powers are only released when choosing Love and Faith as the motivators for our interaction with God and our fellow man. Faith and Love are God’s creative powers revealed to man to undo our sin-nature and create in us a new heart and mind.
Therefore, greater depth of spirituality comes with expressing deeper love of the Father and our Lord and Savior Christ Jesus and faithfully loving, caring and interacting with our fellow man.
Hi Brigitte
Thanks for engaging in the conversation. I actually agree with you that sin can exist within God's presence - which is why I was re-exploring the widely held view reflected by the lesson that it can't .
I didn't mention it in my original comment, but God is omnipresent on this earth including, via the Holy Spirit, within people. How is that possible if sin can't exist in God's presence? What rather appears to be the truth is that in our fallen state, we are not able to survive in God's presence because it would 'overwhelm' us on every level - including physically. I would propose that this is why God had to 'modulate' but not totally avoid manifesting His presence when He appeared to Moses in Exodus 33:20-23.
Again, I agree with you.
Yes, Phil - our God is our most loving and caring Creator who places our feet on the Way of Life Eternal; as our Savior and Teacher, and now by the Holy Spirit actively engaging with us in Faith and Love, He restores in us the ability to again live with Him in the Paradise we once were banished from.
Interesting definition of sin:
I invite all our readers to try that definition on by substituting it for the word "sin" in some Bible passages, somewhat at random:
1 John 5:17 (both mentions), Gen 18:20, Gen 39:9, Gen 50:17, Job 10:6, Job 13:23, Ps 25:7, Ps 25:18, Ps 32:1, Ps 32:5, Ps 51:2, Ps 79:9, Ps 119:11, Matt 9:2, Matt 18:21, Rom 3:20, Rom 4:8; Rom 5:12.
So, how did that work out?
May I suggest that the two standard definitions of sin that we all know will easily replace the word "sin" in those texts without an essay to explain why/how they fit. Here they are:
1 John 3:4 Sin is the transgression of the law. (This doesn't need explaining -- anything out of harmony with God's Law of Love is sin.)
Rom 14:23 Whatever is not of faith is sin.
Please feel free to try substituting these definitions in the texts above and any other texts where "sin" is mentioned. I'd be interested to know of passages where these definitions do not fit.
There are, of course, other descriptions/definitions of sin, but I believe they all harmonize with the definitions I listed. I also believe that God is the universe's best and clearest Communicator, and the same Holy Spirit that inspired the Bible writers to write will make the meaning clear to all who want to know the truth.
I see you have some concerns regarding what I have proposed above - and so I thank you for raising them. I provide the following after further consideration of the points you raised and the references you provided. I submit that what I have proposed is not in any way inconsistent with 1 John 3:4 or Romans 14:23 and therefore is not a displacement of what these verses are saying. You will note that I too included reference to 1 John 3:4. Sin is 'born' of lack of faith and is manifest as lawlessness. But what is lawlessness? And how do lack of faith and lawlessness go on to produce death? What is the functional connection?
I have looked through each of the verses you provided and find they all accord with the notion that sin is the embracing of a death-state - even though that may not seem apparent at the time. Because God graciously enacts restraint of what would otherwise be instantaneous cessation of life in order to create a second-chance period of 'probation', we easily get a false idea that sin is something less than instantaneous disconnection from life (as reflected in the truth statement of Genesis 2:17 versus Satan's misportrayal in Genesis 3:4-5). By way of examining what I have outlined from another perspective, can sin ever directly contribute to life? If it cannot contribute to life, it therefore can only contribute to separation from that which promotes and sustains life and in so doing result in non-life/death.
How does what I have proposed fit the verses you suggested? I have provided some brief explanation of 1 John 5:17 briefly below*, so I will mention the some other listed verses:
Genesis 18:20: Then the Lord said, “Because the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is great and their being in accordance with the principles that result in non-life is very grave...
Genesis 39:9: He is not greater in this house than I am, nor has he kept back anything from me except you, because you are his wife. How then can I do this great wickedness and in so doing embrace the principles that lead to non-life which are contrary God and His Ways that, alone, lead to life?”
Romans 3:20: For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of the principles that, when followed, result in non-life.
I welcome any concerns with a view to discussion and exploration of those concerns. I am not here to tell anyone what they should believe, but only to be a fellow explorer and searcher who is trying to explore and unpack things in a constructive and responsible manner for the sake of growth and development in our faith walk with God and our understanding of Him and His ways. I am interested to see other readers perspectives on this discussion too - as Inge has invited.
--------------
* With regard to the 2 references to sin in 1 John 5:17, the first reference to sin relates to its core nature as something that "leads to death" (1 John 5:16). The second reference to sin in 1 John 5:17 is referring to a situation where a 'sinner' embraces God's redemptive initiatives to be healed and restored from sin, has their heart transformed, but nevertheless unintentionally trips up in sins from time to time in the course of their character being progressively re-formed to greater and greater Christlikeness. If we look at the very next verse, 1 John 5:18, if it were meant to be taken on mere face value, then none of us are "born of God" because I venture to guess that everyone of us has sinned already today. Thus, there is a depth of unpacking involved in understanding of John's passage.
Thanks Phil, I appreciate the idea that sin is the absence of law and therefore life. This would have been the case in the universe pre-sin (Satan knew exactly this point when using it on Eve).
This point importantly reveals the amazing love of God who, when Lucifer first sinned, made a monumental decision of grace and love to hold back the natural consequences (the ‘winds of strife’ as we know them at this end of the cosmic battle), to give the errant angels an opportunity to repent, and to allow the whole universe to see the natural outcome of sin. If only Lucifer had appreciated the magnamous grace that was offered to him!
God has proven right without any doubt, and the universe will once again be restored to peace and perfection. Great thoughts, to meditate on our wonderful Father God!
I see this definition of sin as important when pertaining to original sin. The other definitions of sin are also very relevant for our sinful world. Perhaps an appreciation of this definition would temper the differences regarding what constitutes ‘readiness’ for the Second Coming amongst Adventism. Our puny efforts give way to the “Marvellous Grace of our Loving LORD”.
Phil, I was specifically replying to your definition of sin that
You imply that we can substitute your definition for sin in the verses I listed, but, to me, that does not make sense. For example:
Now, the suggestion that sin results in "absence of life" i.e. death, is perfectly consistent with Scripture. But you wrote that sin is "absence of life/non-state." I see that as neither helpful nor consistent with Scripture, as I understand it. It seems to be a bit like saying that speeding on the highway*is "absence of life" aka death. It doesn't make sense. It makes sense if you say that speeding can result in death. (Except that sin *always* results in eternal death, without the intervention of Christ.)
You appear to base your definition on 1 John 3:4 which states that "sin is lawlessness." Anne Larsen reads your interpretation as "sin is the absence of law and therefore life." But this is in direct contradiction of Paul's statement that where there is no law [that is "absence of law"], there is no transgression/i.e. sin. Rather I interpret 1 John 3:4 to mean that sin is breaking the law, i.e. "transgression of the law" as the KJV puts it.
If I understand what you mean, rather than what you wrote, I agree with you. Sin leads to eternal death, because it separates sinners from God, the LifeGiver. (If that's not what you mean, perhaps you can clarify further.)
Early in your comments you suggested that we need to understand the nature of sin better. I agree to a point, but I think it would be even more helpful to focus on the nature of holiness. I believe that if we focus on allowing Christ to be Lord of our lives, the problem of sin will take care of itself.
You also wrote
And with this I agree. My preference is to focus on a relationship with Christ, rather than harmony with a "law," but the underlying principle is the same.
Thanks Inge
I was not presenting a "definition" as much as a further unpacking of a core aspect of sin's nature. What I was attempting to convey is that sin is fundamentally a principle and an associated/resultant state rather than a physical 'thing'. Whether we are aware of it or not, how we conceptualise sin influences how we conceptualise what salvation is about. This factor has significantly influenced what I would propose is essentially the post-apostolic re-shaping of Christian doctrine and teaching that I find to be contrary to prior biblical teaching. And this re-shaping has, in turn, also re-shaped Christian life and living to something that has evolved to "lukewarm" (as per the progressive portrayal in Revelation regarding the generalised state of 'the church'). I do not say this judgmentally, but descriptively.
With regard to what you have said in relation to 1 John 3:4, there is a difficulty in that the word 'law' is used to refer to more than one phenomenon. When Paul says "where there is no law there is no transgression" (I am assuming you are referring to Romans 5:13), Paul is referring to "the law that was given" - presumably the Mosaic law. However, these given laws are exemplified extrapolations of the natural/'design' law/s that constitute the fabric of reality of life. As such, those natural/'design' laws did pre-date sin. Thus, sin as the transgression of the given law is a more narrow conceptualisation of sin while sin as being out of harmony with the law/s necessary for life is the broadest conceptualisation. I believe John was referring to the broader conceptualisation in 1 John 3:4, but translators have at times taken the narrower conceptualisation which better matches the post-apolostically re-shaped view of what salvation entails.
I agree on the need to focus on and unpack holiness too. So I am not in any way suggesting we need to focus on unpacking an understanding of sin to the exclusion of unpacking holiness. Unpacking each enhances understanding of the other. I am not speaking of understanding merely for the sake of accumulating knowledge (eg Gnosticism), but to assist my walking with God and my being used of God in serving others.
That we can each respectfully share our growing perspectives, even when different, with each other 'for what it's worth' is one of the beneficial aspects I appreciate about this forum.
Inge, I agree the Word of the LORD is clear and that it is important we understand what it means by "sin" otherwise how can we understand or trust these promises:
Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world! John 1:29
... you are to give Him the name Jesus, because He will save His people from their sins." Matt 1:21
If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness 1John 1:9
He himself bore our sins in his body on the cross, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; 1Peter 2:24
I believe the plan of salvation for humans is:
1) to choose the LORD as the King of their lives
2) the records of their sinful lives to be blotted out
3) their characters to be transformed to be like the LORD
So I believe that the overall picture of sin is rejecting the LORD as ones King but it also includes ones deeds before and during the process of being transformed into His image.
Gal 5:19-24. Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: sexual immorality, impurity, indecent behavior, 20idolatry, witchcraft, hostilities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions, 21 envy, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, of which I forewarn you, just as I have forewarned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. 22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law. 24 Now those who belong to Christ Jesus crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.
Thanks Phil, I appreciate what you're saying about sin being the absence of law and therefore life, so that God demonstrated His amazing love, firstly for Lucifer and his angels, in preserving their lives for the purpose of possible repentance, and of seeing the outcome of their choice - and so also with all humanity and indeed the universe.
Before Lucifer's fall, the heavenly hosts would never have been 'any the wiser' regarding sin, but once it occurred, God made a monumental decision to put in place the plan of salvation, which was both a huge risk and a mark of His wonderful love. He has proven right, beyond all doubt, and thanks to Jesus, we also have a way to heaven... It's amazing to meditate upon!
(part 2)...
Possibly, when we say "Jesus died both for our sinful (lawless) state, and for our sinful acts", we are indicating two definitions of sin, which seem to be evident in this discussion?
Hebrews 7:26 NIV
26 Such a high priest truly meets our need—one who is holy, blameless, pure, set apart from sinners, exalted above the heavens.
How does He meet our need?
Holy - I take part in His holiness
Blameless - I am no longer blamed for being sinner in the presence of God by satan. If God is for us who is against us.
Pure - I have been made pure by the blood of the lamb.
Set apart from sinners - I am a new creation in Christ. They are in the world but not of the world.
Exalted - By creation, I was little lower than the angels, but by redemption I have been exalted to be called sons of god.
How could I reject such a great offer In Christ?
Interesting that the LORD spoke to Adam, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses and Aaron but when He spoke to the children of Israel from Mt Sinai they asked Him rather to speak to Moses and let Moses tell them the messages!
God's plan was for them to be a kingdom of priests but they were not up to that responsibility
I am looking forward to this week’s lesson providing more Light to that which has become one of the ‘debated’ aspects of the Christian Faith – Christ Jesus’ priesthood in heaven. Just the terms *priest* and *priesthood* by themselves bring to mind pictures of temple worship and cathedrals where the old concept of priest-facilitated religious worship is still being maintained.
The old religious system required a hierarchy of priests and temple workers and assigned everyone their duties related to the worship of God; this 'system of worship' was instituted for the Israelits on their way to the Promised Land, continuing throughout the millenia until the last Temple was destroyed in Jerusalem.
Religious institutions still select man and give them the title ‘priest’, referring with this to a specific office or duty. But does Christ Jesus hold the same office and does He have the same duties assigned to the priests in the Old Testament times, or has the curtain separating man from His Creator truly been rend for all times to never again be raised?
I think so, and I look forward to learning more about the 'office the new priest holds'; can faithful believers still assign this title to our Creator, Father, Lord and Savior, Christ Jesus?