Tuesday: An Effective Priest
“Therefore, if perfection were through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people received the law), what further need was there that another priest should rise according to the order of Melchizedek, and not be called according to the order of Aaron?” (Hebrews 7:11, NKJV).
Priests are mediators between God and human beings. Hebrews says, however, that Levitical priests could not provide complete, confident access to God because they could not provide perfection (Hebrews 7:11, Hebrews 7:18-19, ). After all, they themselves weren’t perfect; so, how could they somehow bestow perfection upon others?
Image © Jeff Preston from GoodSalt.com
Nor could the animal sacrifices cleanse the conscience of the sinner. Their purpose was to point forward to the ministry of Jesus and His sacrifice, which alone would provide true cleansing from sin (Hebrews 9:14; Hebrews 10:1-3, Hebrews 10:10-14). The function of the Levitical priests and their sacrifices was temporary and illustrative. Through their ministry, God wanted to lead the people to put their faith in the future ministry of Jesus, “the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!” (John 1:29, NKJV).
Read Hebrews 7:11-16. Why was there a need to change the law?
Hebrews 7:12 explains that the change of priesthood made a change in the law necessary. Why? Because there was a very strict law that prohibited a person who was not from the line of Levi through Aaron from serving as a priest (Numbers 3:10; Numbers 16:39-40, ). Hebrews 7:13-14, explains that Jesus was from the line of Judah, and so this law prohibited Him from being a Levitical priest. So, Paul argues that the appointment of Jesus as priest meant God has changed the law of the priesthood.
Jesus’ coming also implied a change in the law of sacrifices. Sinners were required to bring different kinds of sacrifices to obtain atonement (Leviticus 1-7), but now that Jesus has come and offered a perfect sacrifice, the law of animal sacrifices has also been put aside (Hebrews 10:17-18, ) as a result of the new covenant and the fuller revelation of the plan of salvation.
|
Think about the endless number of animal sacrifices offered through antiquity, all pointing to Jesus, and yet not one of them — or all of them — could truly pay for our sins. Why could only the death of Jesus pay for them? |
(23)
It is interesting to read articles from modern observant Jews about their relationship to Jewish practices such as the sacrificial system. Very few of them propose returning to animal sacrifices. They suggest that the sacrifices and priestly ministrations were symbolic and should be replaced with prayer and care for the needy. Christians like to point out that the symbolism points to the work of Christ in the salvation process, and most of us would agree that ingredient is missing from Jewish theology.
However, rather than being dismissive of their stance, we could perhaps learn a little as well. Significantly, Jesus spent about three years publically demonstrating a life of love and understanding and how a relationship with God works. He was a living example of salvation in the present. His life of salvation was practical and down to earth.
In some respects, our theology has concentrated largely on the unseen work of Jesus. I am not suggesting that does not take place or is unimportant, but our theology needs to have something that is demonstrably concrete now. Jesus talked about heavenly things, but he demonstrated the practical outworking of "I and my Father are one!" in his daily interaction with people.
Good point, Maurice! I discovered one of the ways our community of faith are caring for those in need is ADRA.
The Adventist Development and Relief Agency (ADRA) is the global humanitarian organization of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Founded in 1956 as the Seventh-day Adventist Welfare Service - and renamed ADRA in 1984, - the agency has a long and successful history of providing humanitarian relief and implementing development initiatives.
Through an international network, ADRA delivers relief and development assistance to individuals in more than 118 countries—regardless of their ethnicity, political affiliation, or religious association. By partnering with communities, organizations, and governments, ADRA is able to improve the quality of life of millions.
Check out what they are doing now and how you too can get involved.
ADRA
The Sanctuary system was based on the promise that the Messiah would come and be the sacrifice. Every aspect of the Tabernacle in the Wilderness reflects aspects of Jesus Christ's ministry from the encircling white curtains to the mercyseat, but the most important was the sacrifice to make atonement/forgiveness. The priests did not provide forgiveness, they were only intermediaries between the LORD and humans, it was the LORD that accepted the sacrifices and forgave the sinner.
Once Jesus had offered himself as the subsitutionary sacrifice, forgiveness of sins was based on that fact, their records in the books of heaven blotted out, then the next step was for humans to be sanctified/made holy their characters transformed into His image/likeness.
(Jesus said) For this is my blood of the New Testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. (Mat 26:28 KJV)
The blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin. (1John 1:7)
It is he (Jesus) who is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the whole world's. (1Jn 2:2 ISV)
Without the shedding of the blood there is no forgiveness of sins. (Heb 9:22)
How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? ( Heb 9:14 KJV)
Jesus - but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. Heb 9:26)
Jesus was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many (Heb 9:28 ISV)
For what it's worth for those who are interested, there are 2 connected points raised in today's lesson that I will briefly comment on - perfection and payment "for our sins". Don't believe a word I say - but check it out carefully for yourselves.
1) Hebrews 7:11 is not referring to the type of perfection that the lesson proposes - bestowed perfection as a 'product'. The word translated perfect is teleiosis and is used only twice in the New Testament. The other usage is Luke 1:45. Have a read of that verse and you will see the word does not mean the type of perfection alluded to in the lesson. Also look at the origin of the word teleiosis which according to Strong's is derived from phusioo which means to inflate. Thus, the idea of teleiosis is a process of facilitating something to completion and, in turn, consummation - which accords beautifully with Luke 1:45. Levitical priests could not provide teleiosis because they were unable to bypass the problem in Romans 5:12-14. Only Jesus incarnation from outside of humanity to within humanity could bypass that issue and provide what was needed to remedy humanity's sin problem/condition. Paul clearly outlines what Jesus provided in Romans 5:19 and Philippians 2:6-8. Have a look at these verses carefully.
2) The concept of payment for sins (ie that sins can be paid for) was central to Catholic doctrine - and underpinned development of the practice of indulgences and penance. Martin Luther was very bothered by this and so concluded that Jesus pays for our sins. But the idea that sins can (and must) be paid for - and that God requires such - was retained and therefore adopted by Protestantism. Romans 6:23 is often used as the reference text that sins must be paid for. But if you consider the verse carefully, it is sin that directly pays the wage*. Wages are something that you earn directly in response to your labour - they are not a penalty your employer demands. Thus, while Jesus did pay a high price, the price He paid was the taking on the responsibility of fixing our sin problem by becoming the second Adam to actually reverse our sin problem via retracing the exact same path of the first Adam. All other metaphors of atonement are reflective of this. Also have a careful look at Genesis 2:16-17 where you will find mention of the consequences directly provided by sin, but no mention of the concept of a payment being additionally required for the sin. Also no mention of a payment as part of Genesis 3:15 summary of salvation.
Maurice's comment on Sabbath is more significant than most would realise: "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." We have assumed that the sacrificial system was about payment for sins rather than paying a price in the course of actually fixing the sin problem (Hebrews 10:6 accords directly with Leviticus 17:11). Hence we have mistakenly assumed that this is what Jesus was doing and therefore what God must require. And that has shaped our interpretation of verses such as Romans 6:23 that relate to salvation. What is the practical significance of this? That is a topic for another comment.
______________
* This concept is consistent with Galatians 6:8 and James 1:15. It is also consisted with examination of the Greek word 'opsonion' (wages) by Thayers Greek Lexicon. You will also note that the gift of eternal life is explicitly identified as being provided by God. Thus, Romans 6:23 provides 2 parallel concepts - death is the result of the activity of sin, eternal life is the result of the activity of God.
“What is the practical significance of this?”
I can think of one. It is interesting that God did not say,
Yet this is exactly what “paying for your sin” theology would demand. This theology makes God the Father out to be a vengeful tyrant who is ready to demand full payment for the slightest deviation from the jots and tittles of his Law, but who is held at bay by his Son, who begs him to take his life in place of ours. What a distortion of God’s character! How can this picture fit with a God who is Love? It cannot, because it is totally dysfunctional.
Hi Richard
I agree with what you have said in regard to Genesis 2:17. I also agree that the resultant theology has profound practical downstream impacts - with the example you provided being one.
And there is a softer version of the same theology. Rather than God being a vengeful tyrant, He is a loving God but He must, of necessity, require payment for sin otherwise He cannot be a Holy and just God. Though subtle, this version is very widespread.
Whether we are consciously aware of it or not, these views portray an alleged need to deal with ‘the penalty' (that must supposedly be additionally applied) as the bigger (biggest?) issue*, rather than dealing with the sin that is actually doing the destroying. Therefore, the focus becomes how to get this penalty taken care of – with the restoring of our characters to Christlikeness being portrayed as something we “should” do as a love response to the one who paid the penalty. If we stand back and look at the how widespread this view is amongst Christianity, we also find a generalised lukewarmness within that Christianity (an observation, not a judgmental comment). Is there a link between these two co-occurring phenomena?
What if we were to realise that sin** itself is directly producing the 'penalty' of destruction – as per Romans 6:23? Then our focus would be (a) connecting with the only One who, rather than being required to make sure a penalty is paid, is instead seeking to empower us to be actually restored and healed (Isaiah 53:5) – and (b) doing everything we can to also help others do the same (Philippians 2:1-5). This was apostolic Christianity.
How we view the issue of sin and salvation really does have significant implications.
-------------
* From the lesson Sunday Jan 15, 2022:
** Keep in mind that sin is not a physical thing – it is a ‘way of being’ that is out-of-harmony with what is essentially needed for true life and living (1 John 3:4). Therefore living in accordance with the principle that is termed ‘sin’ cannot produce anything other than ‘steal, kill and destroy’ (John 10:10).
I am one of those who believe:
Rather than God being a vengeful tyrant, He is a loving God but He must, of necessity, require payment for sin otherwise He cannot be a Holy and just God.
This is not just something people have made up, it is based on the Word of the LORD in many passages, for example:
Ex 34:6-7
Rom 3:21-26
21But now, apart from the law, the righteousness of God has been revealed, as attested by the Law and the Prophets.
22We are made right with God by placing our faith in Jesus Christ. And this is true for everyone who believes, no matter who we are.
23For everyone has sinned; we all fall short of God’s glorious standard. 24Yet God, in his grace, freely makes us right in his sight. He did this through Christ Jesus when he freed us from the penalty for our sins. 25For God presented Jesus as the sacrifice for sin. People are made right with God when they believe that Jesus sacrificed his life, shedding his blood. This sacrifice shows that God was being fair when he held back and did not punish those who sinned in times past, 26for he was looking ahead and including them in what he would do in this present time. God did this to demonstrate his righteousness, for he himself is fair and just, and he makes sinners right in his sight when they believe in Jesus.
Rom 3:26 that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.
Ps 89:14
Righteousness and justice are the foundation of Your throne; Mercy(lovingkindness) and truth go before Your face.
I base my belief on the DNA of the Everlasting Covenant on which all the Divine Covenants are based.
It has 4 components:
KNOW the true character of the LORD
RECONCILIATION I will be your God and you will be My people and I will dwell with you
SANCTIFICATION I will transform your character to be like mine
JUSTIFICATION I will forgive your sins and remember them no more
I agree we we should not over emphasis one component above the others because then we are misrepresenting the Character of the LORD.
Hi Shirley
Thanks for your comment.
1) I agree that every component that is valid should be incorporated - and in the manner in which it is valid. Scripture incorporates many metaphors - however the metaphors are not automatically the reality. For example, we are called to be salt and light. These are metaphors that refer to the nature of how we are meant to live, not the literal substance we are meant to be composed of. There are references to legal concepts in scripture, but that does not automatically mean salvation is a legal issue or that God operates a cosmic courtroom. There are also references to healing, but that equally does not mean God operates a cosmic hospital. We need to identify what aspects of the metaphor are valid and which ones are applying the metaphor beyond what was intended. Isaiah 55:8-9 informs us that God's ways are higher than our ways - yet Christianity portrays many of the key aspects of God's ways as essentially the same as our human ways. We live within a legal-penal society and have therefore assumed that God does too without critically examining this assumption within scripture.
2) English translations of the Bible reflect a legal-penal slant of interpretation that has crept into Christianity since apostolic times. The original languages scriptures do not, in and of themselves, support this slant to the preclusion of a non-legal-penal interpretation. However, without checking this out carefully, it is understandable that reading of English translations would lead people to conclude that God must operate within a legal-penal reality. The particular paraphrase of Romans 3:24,25 you cited (NLT?) incorporates and emphasises a slant that is not in the original texts.
When I first came across suggestion that scripture supported a view other than the legal-penal slant that I had been raised to believe was true, I was sure that suggestion was wrong and so I studied to prove for myself that it was, in fact, wrong. However, the more I studied into the Bible, the more I discovered that it wasn't wrong - I was. This was really uncomfortable discovery that I initially resisted strongly. Since then I have see first-hand how people's walk with God and desire to love others has been transformed for the better as a result of their coming to see God and His ways in a non-legal-penal way.
I am not saying that everyone must believe what I am sharing. I only share what I have become convicted of and find substantiated across the entirety of scripture, for what it is worth to others, because I have seen and continue to see transformed lives when people realise God is not against us, but sin is. Each of us should share what we believe and the basis for that belief - and then each person can decide for themselves what they believe and why (Acts 17:11). I recall Ellen White emphasising that truth can afford to be fair - it will lose nothing by close investigation. So I welcome being challenged to substantiate anything that I write and trust that others would be open to doing the same - and that whether we agree of disagree on certain points, we treat each other with dignity and respect. This dynamic characterised the early history and development of Adventism.