Tuesday: Our High Priest
Read Hebrews 7:24-27, Hebrews 8:6. What great hope is given to us in these texts?
Christ is able to save completely due to several qualifications that no other priest could ever have. He is God, who has authority to forgive sins.
Image © Lars Justinen from GoodSalt.com
He has a permanent priesthood. During the Christian era He is interceding all the time for His people, with the same loving compassion as when He healed the sick and comforted the lonely. He is also human but was born sinless and remained that way. And, as the sinless One, He died under the staggering weight of the sum total of human sin. Only He, then, as the God-Man, can intercede for sinners in heaven’s sanctuary.
What these texts show, too, is that Christ’s sacrifice was once and for all. It needed to happen only one time, and it was sufficient to bring salvation to every human being.
After all, considering who it was who died on the cross, how could such an offering not be sufficient for every human being?
Read Hebrews 9:11-15. What has Christ obtained for us through His death and now His ministry in heaven?
Hebrews 9:12 says that Christ has “obtained eternal redemption” (NKJV). The Greek word translated “redemption” also means “ransoming”, “releasing”, and “deliverance”. It’s the same word used in Luke 1:68, when Zacharias declared that God has “visited and redeemed His people” (NKJV). The reference to Christ’s blood — the blood of the only sufficient sacrifice — means that it was Christ, as the sacrificial Lamb, who obtained this redemption, this deliverance. And the great news of the gospel is that Christ obtained this, not for Himself, but for us, and it becomes efficacious for all who accept Christ’s sacrifice for them.
| Dwell on this idea, that Christ has “obtained” “eternal redemption” for us, and it was only after He accomplished this that He entered into His work in the heavenly sanctuary on our behalf. What hope does this offer us regarding what Christ is doing for us in the heavenly sanctuary? |
(57)
I think that the Heavenly, the earthly, and the human tabernacles are all related and the same thing is happening in each temple. When Christ enters the Heavenly Most Holy place He is also entering the same compartment of the human temple. Is this the human mind?
If it were not for the human temple in need if cleansing would there be a need for a Heavenly temple at all? Would it exist? So where is the focus of this cleansing of sin but in the human temple? 1 Peter 2:5 KJV
[5] Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.
Revelation 21:22 KJV
[22] And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it.
Are we IN HIM in this picture?
Great thoughts Don! I love the idea about different parts of the sanctuary representing different parts of the human mind. I echo a lot of your thoughts in this presentation I wrote years ago. https://ssnet.org/blog/where-is-the-most-holy-place/
Just clarifying: When Christ rose He entered the Sanctuary. Modern translations 'edit' scripture.On His return He entered the Sanctuary.
I have been rethinking my understanding of Christ’s intercessory ministry. I would appreciate comments from others.
Intercession means to go between or to speak for or to argue in favor of someone when there is a gap between that person and another. When I was younger the teaching was Christ pleading His blood to the Father. To whom is He pleading? I submit it is not the Father since we have ample scripture support that God is for us, that He was in the Son reconciling the world to Himself and that if you have seen the Son, you have seen the Father.
That older model doesn’t do it for me anymore, yet I believe Christ is doing an important work in my behalf. Intercession is separate from judgment so am asking for your thoughts to help me understand it better.
Thanks for your thoughts and insights.
Thank you, Douglas, for your interest in truth above what we always thought. I have long had a problem with the concept that God is against us with His wrath because of our sin and Jesus is, somehow, trying to appease this wrath with His blood.
Somehow we must get past this improper attitude about God. The truth is: "2 Corinthians 5:19 KJV
[19] To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation." Here we can see that Christ is not divided from God in this issue. So, like your quesstion, who has to be appeased?
I would submit a possible answer to see if it may fit. My first thought is the judgment of the court of the universe of God's creation including Satan, his angels, unfallen angels, people of this world, other people on other planets, God Himself, etc. We are told that every knee will bow before God in the final judgment. Since God does not force obedience, this is evidently voluntary and agreed upon.
Yes, God is the judge. But we also have a free will and are allowed freedom as to who we will serve and who is right. Evidently everyone will have a chance to see the whole issue and make a decision about the the great controversy between God and Satan.
May I suggest that the concept of "appeasement" is heathen one that has no basis in Scripture? (I believe it was/is Satan's way of twisting the sacrifice of Christ as the "Lamb of God" as pre-figured in the sacrifical system.)
Thus, I think a better question would be, "Who has to be satisfied?" which includes all the nuances of meaning we might want to include in the subject.
I tend to agree with your general conclusion that the "judgment" is for the benefit of the whole universe. It is God's way of being transparent with all His created beings.
I agree that God is not looking to be appeased, but on the other side of the controversy is the accuser of the brethren. He is the one doing the condemning and the discouraging and the tempting us to separate from God. He is condemning us because of our sins and claims us as his own.
We see the controversy and condemnation of this nature with Saran's condemnation of Joshua dressed in filthy garments and God's defense of Joshua.
Zechariah 3
It seems that the only thing that convinces us is the infinite Love of God as shown in the life of Jesus and His death on the cross.
Maybe we could see Christ's role in a more "legal", court-based context. God's law is perfect, just and part of who He is. Therefore, the law is what needs to be "satisfied" in the court rooms of heaven and before the whole universe. Somehow, the semantics have led to an incorrect perspective on this. Christ's "pleading" is simply His presenting His perfect life and death before the Father on our behalf. Its a legal proceeding--as Inge wrote God is being transparent for the entire universe. God is the judge, not the prosecutor. He is not trying to condemn us, Satan is the accuser. Jesus stands there in our defence (against Satan's accusations--not God's) and says this person has chosen me, I know him, we have a relationship, my shed blood qualifies him for heaven.
Inge, "appease/satisfy" is the language in the old testament Hebrew concerning the "propitiation" (kapporeth: propitiatory) for sin which is demanded by God in "the soul that sins will die". It's not a threat, but a reality. Adam was told that he would die on the day he disobeyed God's statute. The only reason Adam didn't die is that another One offered to die in his place. This death would "satisfy" a just Law, allowing the guilty sinner to be forgiven upon the condition of repentance.
The true meaning of what is now translated as "mercy seat" is more accurately "propitiatory", or place of propitiation. The sinless blood of Christ propitiates the law on the repentant sinner's behalf.
Perhaps appeasement through works is a heathen concept, but not the requirement of the law against sin, which is real, which Jesus' death on the cross proves, doesn't it?
The ram caught in the thicket sufficed in Isaac's place, as Jesus does for "whosoever believeth in Him". With out this God-given appeasement, every sinner would need to die. Sounds like "good news" to me.
Could you please clarify in what version of the Bible you read "appease" in reference to God or the Atonement?
It would be helpful if you shared your understanding of the word "appease."
(The generally accepted current meaning, according to Merriam-Websteris:
"Definition of appease. appeased; appeasing. transitive verb. 1 : pacify, conciliate; especially : to make concessions to (someone, such as an aggressor or a critic) often at the sacrifice of principles. appeased the dictator by accepting his demands."
In my previous question I referenced the "atonement" - probably because that's what enters my mind re the OT. However, you actually reference "propitiation" in the OT, and I need some help finding that in the Old Testament.
Hi Robert
Your post has led me to reflect on aspects related to interpreting and conveying scripture.
One of the challenges we face is to understand what the original writer was intending to convey, given that they were in a very different culture and a very different time. This can be a rather complex issue. When it comes to word study, there is at least a two-fold consideration - (a) what was the conceptual meaning intended by the Hebrew word/s used by the original author and (b) which English word/s best conveys the intended concept.
Taking the example you have provided - kapporeth which, according to NAS Exhaustive Concordance, has been defined as "propitiatory" and translated as "mercy seat". Strong's concordance makes this same linkage between mercy seat and propitiation, explaining that the mercy seat was considered the place of propitiation. And then there is the root word that kapporeth is derived from - kaphar which literally means to cover or cover over (with the first instance in the bible being when Noah 'covered over' the ark with pitch), but is also associated with the word we refer to as atonement. Strong's Concordance gives the short definition of 'appease', whereas Brown-Driver-Briggs give a broad range of usages that outline a range of nuances related to finer applications of the above concepts. So, we have a range of Hebrew meanings that, although they converge, at the same time they also suggest nuances.
Now there is the English layer to contend with. What do the above translated words convey in English? If I take the word propitiate, the most common English dictionary meaning essentially is to work to solve a disagreement by trying to calm an angry party down - which also links in with the most common understanding of appeasement. However, while these are the most typical usages of these words, they are not the only meanings of the words. Propitiation can also mean 'that which expiates'.
So what does expiate mean? It can mean "to show that you are sorry for bad behaviour by doing something or accepting punishment" (Cambridge English Dictionary) - still heading down a certain path. But it can also mean to make atonement or reparation - which can convey the idea of bringing about an atonement by actually repairing the underlying 'thing' that actually caused the separation. This is opening up a very different conceptual pathway of understanding.
So, how do we know which of the range of conceptual meanings (both at the level of Hebrew and English) best 'fit' what was intended?
This is where two further concepts need to be considered: context and developmental considerations within the context. With regard to the first, what is the context of the Hebrew word in terms of the progression of thought in the verse, the chapter, the book etc?
With regard to developmental considerations, one of my theology lecturers constantly emphasised that the Bible reflects a developmental trajectory (matching the development of the people contained within) whereby things stated at one point were at times developmentally-relevant applications of truth designed to meet people where they were at and then progressively draw them forward in their understanding at a rate they could 'cope with' for want of a better term. Sound teaching pedagogy is based on this concept too. One example is where God introduced 'an eye for an eye' which was a significant step forward at the time from the prevailing practice of amplified pay-back (eg as per Lamech's 77 fold payback bragging in Gen 4). Later, 'turn the other cheek' was introduced to a people who had moved from disproportionate payback to proportionate payback and were now ready to be moved to non-payback. Another example of developmental consideration is the ascribing to God in the OT of acts that we would ascribe in more recent times to Satan - eg an evil spirit from the Lord (1 Sam 16:14).
And then there is the point that you rightly referred to in your comment - the consideration of reality. An interpretation needs to fit coherently and cohesively with reality (which itself needs to be coherent and cohesive - even when containing apparent paradoxes). While it is true that God's ways are higher than our ways (Isa 55:8,9), and that we can only see but dimly (1 Cor 13:12), God invites us to 'come and reason' with Him (Isa 1:18) drawing on the Holy Spirit to help us to discern the things we need to know for salvation (1 Cor 2:14) so that we 'rightly divide the Word of Truth' (2 Tim 2:15).
So, taken together, how are we to interpret concepts such as kapporeth such that they accurately reflect the wider reality that they are associated with? Do the concepts of propitiation, mercy seat, atonement reflect a God whose nature and character is similar to those of pagan 'gods' who demand requirements? Or is it reality that God is distinctly different in nature and character to the 'promoted' nature and character of pagan 'gods' - a God who operates in accordance with beneficent-based reality (a concept well described in Desire of Ages pgs 20, 21) because it is reality, a God who does not 'demand' or 'require' in the way these concepts are typically understood - but rather works in harmony with beneficent-based reality because that is what is necessary for abundant life to actually work - including what is needed for actual restoration of that which saw the loss of this abundant life within humanity under the first Adam?
I would also submit that one further thing in particular that will help foster constructive dialogue in regard to developing Biblical understanding – namely, elaborating upon what is specifically meant by key terms. As I have outlined above, a given word frequently can/does have a range of connotations. Consequently, it is necessary to know the particular connotation/conception is actually being referred to by a given contributor/writer. To this end, I agree with Douglas's comment about the vital importance of going beyond 'jargon' - which includes terms we may assume we all know what we mean, but which actually carry a diversity of meanings or nuances.
In summary, there are many layers of consideration that need to be undertaken in order to identify what a Bible writer was meaning behind a particular word/term/concept in their original language. This includes whether the word/term/concept represents ‘universal’ truth or developmentally-relevant applications of truth that are specific to that developmental context. And then there is the selection of the best English equivalent that, as accurately as possible, conveys the concept into current understanding in a way that reduces the risk of misunderstanding as much as possible. Providing sufficient elaboration of a word/term is also needed to go beyond ‘jargon’ and to help foster clear dialogue and development of understanding.
@Phil,
Thank you for noting, among other things,
A list of texts where kapporeth is used can be found at BlueLetterBible.org. (The link is specific, but the whole site is a good site to bookmark for any Bible student.)
And then there's the root meaning of kaphar. You can also find the usage at BlueLetterBible.org.
Being bi-lingual, I have some idea of the difficulties of translating one language into another. I remember being truly puzzled about my sixth-grade classmates asking me about eating hot dogs. (Think about it. Heated dogs had no food appeal for me. 😉 ) But German-English translation is easy compared to Hebrew-English translation. While I have not studied Hebrew, my husband has just enough acquaintance with the language to appreciate the difficulty of translation. Hebrew has a relatively small vocabulary, and meanings of the same word change significantly, depending on context. Checking out how kapporeth and kaphar are translated gives us a little idea, and it also tells us that translators were sensitive to the issue of context.
Notice that kapporeth is never translated as appeasement. (That's why I asked in what version of the Bible this was found, but did not receive a direct reply.) And kaphar is never translated "appeasement" in reference to God. It is only found in Gen 23:20 in reference to Jacob attempting to "appease" Esau. Translating kapporeth as "appeasement" in relation to God can thus only result from the context of a false concept of the character of God. And this is precisely what happened just before Christ came to this planet. See Desire of Ages, p. 21, but please don't stop there. Read this whole wonderful first chapter of the Desire of Ages.)
By the time Christ became incarnate, the Jews had so far misapprehended God that they actually offered their sacrifices to "appease" the wrath of God, just as their heathen neighbors offered the sacrifices to their gods. (See Desire of Ages, p. 115. I recommend reading the whole chapter.) One of the reasons Christ came to die on this earth was to dispel this heathen concept of God.
Whenever we use the words "appease" or "appeasement" in reference to God and the atonement, we are supporting heathen concepts which Satan has introduced to obscure the character of God. Note that
Phil's little essay on the factors we need to consider when we look at interpreting individual words in the Bible, as interpreted from the original languages, takes on extreme importance when you consider that a Seventh-day Adventist Bible student could interpret Old Testament sacrifices - and, by extension, the sacrifice of Christ - as "appeasements." The bottom line is that it can be very dangerous to use a concordance and use one of the meanings of a word as the meaning and then extrapolate a concept of salvation from that.
Let us be very cautious in our use of concordances and Bible dictionaries, always keeping in mind the context of the times and the character of God. I also appreciate Phil's reminder that God speaks to us in the context of our culture and understanding. God doesn't need to grow, but we do, and, as we grow in understanding, He reveals more of Himself and His character to us. I pray that we will all grow daily in our understanding of our Almighty God whose essential character is self-renouncing love and that we may reflect that character in our own lives.
Don, thanks for encouraging Douglas' pursuit of "truth above what we always thought."
Within the object lesson of the OT Tabernacle (Sanctuary) the role of the High Priest (and his assistants) and the sin offering are central and indispensable (Num 18:1;Heb 9:22) to the Tabernacle's continued function. Neither role would be necessary but for the entry of human sin (Jn 1:29; Mt 26:28), and human sin became a reality when our ancestor was induced by our Creator's enemy to think independently of our Creator. Since then, the thoughts of all humans exists in a state of insubordination to its Creator (Rm 3:9; Isaiah 53:6; Mk 7:21-23).
Independent thought (Gen 2:16-17 vs Gen 3:6) was directly responsible for Christ's death. History's record of humanity's experiment with thought independence has been one of unpleasant distress at best (ask anyone victimized by any one of the multiple thoughts from Jesus' list in Mk 7:21-23!) to the potential horror of God's abandonment (Lev 23:28-29; Mt 10:33). Scripture is clear regarding our Creator's commitment (Jn 3:16; 2 Cor 5:18-19) to sparing humans everywhere from the pain of personal, interpersonal and Divine victimization that results from independent thinking (Jam 1:14-15; Jer 17:9-10).
The fallen minds of humans places us in severe danger--right here, right now. Encouraging each other to explore and understand what is in the mind of our High Priest (Jer 9:24; 29:11) and the Tabernacle which represents the designated place that facilitates Christ's ministry (Mal 2:7; 1 Pt 2:5,9) is to breathe new life (Col 1:21-23) into an ancient Gospel (Gal 3:8,14). That Gospel foretold the transaction where human independent thinking would be replaced with a mind (Rm 8:1-2), like the Lamb's/High Priest's (1 Cor 2:16; Rm 8:9), subordinated to thought dependence on the Holy Spirit from God.
Jesus may have seemed to the Jewish leaders like an "independent" thinker, but He had thoughts motivated by the Spirit of Truth
He is our example and we should encourage only those thoughts that are motivated by that same Spirit. These thoughts may be different from what we "always thought."
Of course, these thoughts should be confirmed with scripture and be according to the Character of God.
Douglas, perhaps you didn't understand the "older model" correctly? Jesus IS pleading His merits on behalf of those who have received Him as Savior. Why is He pleading, and to whom?
Keep in mind, there is a judgment going on, and there is an accuser of the brethren(those who believe in the Lamb of God and our great High Priest) and Jesus answers these accusations with His merits on the sinner's behalf. Jesus doesn't plead to win God's agreement/approval, but to answer the accuser. It's that simple. The same thing happens in our courts every day. Jesus is our advocate and Himself has secured our salvation if we receive Him and believe on His name.
Keep in mind that "God so love the world, that He gave [Jesus]" to redeem it. Jesus can only plead for "whosoever believeth in Him". This is the vital lesson to learn isn't it?
Nothing wrong with the old model if understanding it correctly. This whole system of salvation is God's doing, He isn't angry with any, but must at last exercise His "wrath" on all who reject the only means of being saved. His "wrath" is giving them what they want; the wages of sin, since they cling to it. He has been faithful to warn all(John 16:8, Titus 2:11).
Look at the advantages our High Priest:
He lives forever
He has a permanent priesthood - you don't have to worry who is the priest today.
He is able to save completely - You don't have to go for the sanctuary service year after year as in the OT. My past, present adn future sin is covered in Him.
who always lives to intercede for them - What an assurance, I don't have to wait for the day of atonement. He is always interceding on my behalf.
To Him be glory forever and ever Amen.
Don and Inge, thank you for your responses. Perhaps I should have asked my question more clearly. I agree that the unfallen brings need to see that we are safe to save because they don’t want the neighborhood to be in jeaporady again. That I believe is the judgment issue. Intercession is different in my mind. Jesus began this ministry at His ascension and Adventists believe judgment didn’t begin until 1844. What exactly has He been doing for those 1800 years and still continues to do.
The quote from Sabbath afternoon seems to indicate we need to have a deeper understanding of His intercession. “The subject of the sanctuary and the investigative judgment should be clearly understood by the people of God. All need a knowledge for themselves of the position and work of their great High Priest. Otherwise it will be impossible for them to exercise the faith which is essential at this time or to occupy the position which God designs them to fill.”—Ellen G. White, The Great Controversy”
I am just asking why Christ is interceding and with who.
Somehow your answers seem to be reflecting the conversation with unfallen beings during the judgment phase and I think the lesson is taking the official SDA stance that separates the two.
Thanks for weighing in.
We all deserve to be judged as guilty because we have broken God’s laws by sinning. The sin separates us from God because evil has no place in God’s kingdom. Heaven wouldn’t be heaven if evil were allowed. Light cannot dwell with darkness. And yet God’s heart broke to know that we would be eternally separated from Him. He who lovingly created us also lovingly redeemed us by sending His Son to save us. I am not worthy in my sinful state to approach the Father and therefore Christ covers me with His righteousness and intercedes on my behalf. It isn’t that my loving Father rejects me but rather that my sinfulness separates me. Praise be to God that Jesus bridges the gap.
Thanks Cayla. That is my understanding also. Without our sinless, undefiled, holy, separate from sinners High Priest Jesus, we would have no access to the Father who loves us so passionately! Through Jesus, the Father also is able to have connection and relationships with His beloved children. How hurt and lonely He would be if this was not possible. Jesus connects us to God the Father and connects the Father to us. Hallelujah!
Sinners cannot approach the Father directly. But Jesus can, for us. So we can come boldly to the throne of Grace.
Let's look at the whole concept of intercession from the opposite side. Is Jesus trying to convince God to accept me? Or is He trying to convince me to accept God? Who needs intercession? I see it as Jesus applying the blood of His sacrifice to my heart to intercede for God, convincing me of the great controversy's battle between good and evil! Will I believe God or Satan's lies? God has put Himself on trial choose you this day whom you will believe! So much truth is revealed in the services and feasts associated with the sanctuary, we need a year (or eternity) to study it not just a week!
Jesus' blood blots out our sin from our record. That appears to me to be the interceding. He's not trying to convince someone to save us. He's just setting the record straight that we are forgiven. His promise in 1 John 1:9 is to forgive us and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. Forgiveness and repentance go hand in hand.
The work of Jesus now is to finish the work of producing His Character completely in His children. When this happens He will come back and take His children to Heaven. Then the next phase of finishing the great controversy will begin and last for 1000 years.
The judgment will then be completely finished when the Holy City comes to this Earth and the wicked are destroyed in the lake of fire. The earth will be purified and made new. God's people will live eternally in peace and sin will never return because of our experience and the record that has been made of it.
Part of the issue we have when discussing the issues surrounding the judgement is that we have this picture of events along a timeline. As a physicist, I have studied enough about relativity to understand that the space and time are closely related and tied to our existence. God on the other hand is not constrained by time and space so notions about what God was doing in the time between this and that do not make sense. I look at the issue this way. The concepts of salvation are eternal - by that I mean they are not time related, but are revealed to us in a temporal framework because that is what we understand. When we raise the issue of the timing of the salvation concepts over the significance of those concepts we lose sight of them.
In the context of the current discussion it is important to understand that sin separates us from God and that God wants us back again. The plan of salvation accomplishes that. Some will accept God's grace and others will refuse it. Intercession is simply Jesus standing in our place because we are unworthy. That is the big picture and is not time related.
This is awesome Maurice, you have explained it so clearly to me as I’ve thought the exact same thing on God’s time concept. Thank you for your clarity.
Maurice, could you expound further on your idea that "it is not time related"? The Bible speaks of time, end of time, time of the end, hour of His judgment, etc, and the type was clearly run like a clock and always at a specific time.
In the light of this, how do you apply your understanding of time being irrelevant in this "hour of His judgment"? Perhaps you could share your idea of what the judgment is actually about, which may help your thought make more sense.
My comment has more to do with the notion of eternal than the judgement. I am not trying to say that the judgement does not take place. Everything in our physical existence takes place in the space-time continuum and that sets the limit of our vision. God on the other hand is eternal. We often think of eternal as meaning an infinitely long period of time, which I believe is wrong. One of the conundrums we face with that notion is we have the problem of what was God doing before he created the universe etc. If we think of God as being timeless then God's "existence" makes sense (I think that existence is not quite the right word because existence to us means occupying a position in the time space continuum). The big ideas associated with God are also eternal (not time limited). God of course has to deal with us in our time-space continuum and uses the notion of time to separate events so that our minds can comprehend what he is talking about. With that in mind, the judgement is "eternal" and does not come before or after anything because it is timeless. My point is that the notion of judgement is more important than our perception of when it happens.
I could add that the notion of "eternal" as being "timeless" helps me to understand the issues of omniscience as well. But that is another story.
Maurice, you wrote: "We often think of eternal as meaning an infinitely long period of time, which I believe is wrong." Could you share why you believe this is wrong?
As I read further into your comment, it seems to me you are grappling with something according to human definitions and understandings, where God has been silent. The highest learning one might achieve in this world cannot touch what God has not revealed. We cannot rely on anything that we believe helps us to "understand" anything outside of Divine revelation. Look at where such "understanding" had gotten so much of the science community. Pick up almost any book or watch nearly any video on these subjects and see how the Word of God is often trampled on and considered naive and foolish by the worldly wise. What does Paul say of this?
If you have something from scripture, please share it.
I appreciate the call to share scripture Robert, but I also experience the real world and have the task of maintaining my faith in a scientific world. As you have probably gathered I have a background in science, in particular Chemistry and Physics. For several years I worked on the hemin compounds, the chemistry at the centre of Haemaglobin. That involved a lot of learning that I could not get from the Bible. My work in science has given me a greater understanding of how God works. The statement, “God spake and it was done” takes on new meaning when you look carefully at his creation and see the intricacy of design and intention. Such understanding does not come from reading the Bible alone. Nor am I leaning on my own understanding. I am melding my faith with my science. God has revealed a lot of himself in his creation and those of us who have had the opportunity to study it come to understand God more as a result.
As you can appreciate, keeping my faith, when I work in a scientific world is challenging, but it is not without its rewards. And in the scientific community there are many good people who share the same journey I have and although they come to different conclusions I respect their honest search for meaning in nature. I think particularly of the work of C A Coulson, a molecular orbital theorist who wrote the wonderful little book, “Science and Christian Belief” as a testament of resolving the issues of Science and belief.
With regard to my discussion points on eternal, my reading on cosmology has been both challenging and revealing. To me it has opened up new horizons of thought about what eternal really means. A study of relativity reveals the close relationship of space and time and the fact that none of these properties are considered linear in cosmological terms. I find it interesting that non-religious cosmologists actually consider a creation ex-nihilio as a starting point. The discussions about time and time-space horizons have given my a greater understanding of the limitations that time place on us and I see that as providing an insight into how we should understand an eternal omniscient God. Of course, for a person who has not read a modern account of objects such as black holes and other recently discovered space phenomenon and who has not considered their implication, a lot of what I am saying does not make sense. What I do want to convey is that it has given me an understanding of timeless “existence” that helps me understand God better. I do not expect everyone to have the same understanding that I have. However, I hope that it helps if people see that at least some of us scientists keep our faith In spite of the challenge of science.
GM brothers n sisters thank u Carla , i think that's part of the answer Douglas is looking for. Because of our sin we r not worthy to stand before God His holyness and righteousness
would instantly kill us so Jesus pleads for us. Ex 32:32 says Yet now if thou will forgive their sin ; and if not blot me I pray there out of the book.....Moses was a type of Christ doing a similar pleading the people deserve death right there n then , but God listens, n forgives the people didn't even think to ask for forgiveness but God in His mercies allowed Moses to intercedes ( not that God wasnt gonna forgive them
bcause He already had His plan )
To continue what I was saying Hebrews 9 :12 b. By His own blood He entered once into the holy place having obtained eternal redemption for us. Jesus did this for us all we have to do is accept His sacrifice ...The bottom line when God draws us to Himself thru His Holy Spirit (2Cor. 5:19 God thru Christ reconciling us....)He/God don't see us but He sees His perfect Son pleading for us so He forgives, patdons , dileveres and declares us righteous.when we know n understand this imp subject , we can't help but to consistently come to Him by fath so Christ can prepare us for this end time.
I attended adventist schools for 12-1/2 years in the ‘50s and early ‘60s. I never “rejected” the teaching that Jesus entered the second and final phase of his high-priestly ministry at the close of the 2300 days but I knew I could never teach that doctrine until I found a way to teach it that didn’t seem antithetical to basic protestant principles.
When the pioneers of the advent movement taught that the work of Jesus wasn’t finished or “completed” on Calvary, did they mean that his sacrifice was somehow inadequate or incomplete? Or did they mean that his crucifixion was the atonement supplied and his work work as our high priest is the atonement applied?
If the work of our high priest is to deal with the sin problem, what, exactly, is “sin”? All adventists know the definition found in I John 3:4 but that is not the only biblical definition of sin. Which aspect or aspects of sin are being “cleansed”? Guilt? Temptation? Selfishness? The record of our sinful acts? Is the record of all sins being expunged? Or only the record of those sins that have already been confessed and forgiven?
Most people who think they have rejected God haver really only rejected a caricature of him. Something similar could be said about the doctrine of the cleansing of the heavenly temple.
Cayla, thanks for your response. Can I please push you a little further? You said Christ intercedes for you. We all use words like that in our discussions. What does intercession involve in your thinking? Christ intercedes for us, but with whom? Am just trying to get a better handle on words that often roll off our tongue and when I actually asked myself the repeated questions of what is involved and with whom I keep coming up with falling back on jargon that really doesn’t explain it further.
I’m not trying to be difficult. I am searching for a better understanding as I did deeper. I hate to end up with “because I told you so or because I learned it” that is good enough.
Thanks for your thoughts.
Hi Douglas
If I may convey something at this point, I've been following your questions (and those of others) throughout today's lesson. I can resonate both with your questions and your reasons for asking them. It's great to see healthy questioning that prompts us each to going beyond the 'jargon' and even to revisting sin and salvation 'fundamentals' and/or digging a little deeper - not merely for the sake of expanding our knowledge, but for deepening our walk with God and our capacity to witness that walk with others.
Just wanted to affirm the healthy discussion taking place here today...
Hebrews 7: 24 answers your question.
Jesus is interceding for us before the father. While Jesus paid the price for sin at the cross,he continues to mediate between God and man, just as Moises mediated between God and man during the Mosaic covenant, Christ is the mediator of this new covenant. There might not be a day that we, for one reason or another, would not sin, and Christ is there to mediate for our sins just as the old testament priest did. One of the major differences is that contrary to the OT priest, Christ is from an everlasting priesthood (in the order of Melchizedek)and he never sinned; therefore, he does not have to atone for his own sins (like the OT priest had to).
God is not against us and He has never been. However, he is against sin. He hates sin, but loves the sinner (the person). Keep in mind,the trinity is involved in the plan of salvation and each one has a different role on this plan. Jesus' role in the plan of salvation is exemplified in the sanctuary, where is the mediator, the priest, high priest and the lamb.
I hope this helps,
Blessings
"Through the intercession of Christ, the image of God is renewed in mind, and heart, and character." EGW, The Upward Look, p. 64
"Jesus has opened the way to the Father's throne, and through His mediation the sincere desire of all who come to Him in faith may be presented before God. The Great Controversy, p. 489
I hope in Christ this will make sense, as Jesus is the word of God. The word came and do all what the Father said it must do. And the word went back to the Father performed or did as it was commanded. Now the word is with the Father who has the law to condemn the world. Christ as the word who knows how to do what the Farher said in the law is there standing for us not to be condemn by the law of the Father. Remember the mecy seat. Those who are in Christ are not condemn. Take it like this those who are in the Word are not condemn for the word did the law. So the word(Jesus) that God said man will live by it, went back to the Father successful and it is with God. All those who took the word(Jesus) are living by it. The book of John reveals this. So this work of the sanctuary is actually the word going back to the Father sitting at the right hand mercy seat between the Shekinar and the law. Its like what the Father said went out of His mounth and did all and came back again to His mouth. Now what was written by the finger(law) has no power to condemn what was said(word) for the word(Jesus) was anointed. For God is no liar that man will live by all His word(Jesus). May God bless us in Jesus Christ. Amen
Thanks, Amandile. It also helps to remember that Christ is the same Person as Jehovah of the Old Testament. Thus He gave the Law from Sinai, along with the Father. He appeared to the Israelites in a pillar of fire or cloud, and He was the One who appeared in the Shekinah over the mercy seat. Thus in a very real way, justice and mercy are united in the Godhead, as demonstrated by Christ aka Jehovah.
@Anderson
Please do we have people on other planet?
Assist me.
Enock, I'm quite sure there are no people on other "planets," which are part of our solar system.
However, I do believe there are people on other worlds, possibly in other galaxies. The book of Job gives us that idea. Satan came among the "sons of God" to represent this earth. Since he stole Adam's place, we assume that the other "sons of God" are representatives of other worlds.
I greet in Jesus Christ name.Amen. First let me say thank you for the question and secondly, I have not heard or read any verse that suggest that we have other people somewhere out there. I'm not saying I read all the Bible. Thank you. But what the Bible suggest to us is that we are the sons of God Genesis 6:2 and Galatians 3:26. The devil satan is the accuser Rev 12:10. He tempts us to break the law and after that points out our failure. The adversary adverse the law . Let me try and illustrate and remember all what is happening or rather say all this controversy is about the Law/ the Word of God nothing else. Satan trying to stand in the place of God by breaking the law (Isaiah14:13-14) God said : Do not commit adultry. What the devil does tempts us to commit adultry, by giving us excuses to do adultry and blame it on the situation. But Gods word/ Law is not dependent on any situation it is to be done Psalm 119:60; John 14:15. My point is the Bible points to us as the son of God Matthew 5:9; John 1:12 and Romans 8:14. Now the devil is on this earth trying by all means for us to break the law. If we wish to understand this Isaiah 14 and Jeremiah 28:11-19 where it shows how pride made Lucifer to sin, this is his sin of breaking the law by also causing man to sin(break the law) in John 8:44. Satan is all about causing us to sin. The sons of God to present them may means to come to pray to God as the church has to do and the devil/satan come to cause disturbance he had gone to and fro on earth anywhere where he could find and cause man to sin 1Peter 5:8. Then that's where God showed him Job. Satan knew(Job1:10) Job but Job was not interested in sin he ran away from sin Job 1:1; James 4:7 and the devil is not interested in people who run away from sin. The Bible is about the word of God to man on earth and in heaven Acts 4:12. If we can grasp this concept. Man will live by all what God had said that means His "word"(Life)John 3:16. Man will live by all God had pointed "the way"(righteousness by faith) Romans 10:8-11. Man will live by all God had written "the truth"(Law)Psalm 119:142. In the beggining God created the heavens and the earth Genesis 1:1. Deuteronomy 4:2.
Please allow me to thank you all for responding to the question on Christ’s intercessory role. I have also reached out to others and would recommend some comments by Jon Paulien that can be found on the Pine Knoll SS site or Google his blog on the atonement for more information.
My first observation was that most answers lumped the role of judgment in with intercession. I think that underscores the reason for the question. If judgment didn’t begin until 1844 and intercession began at ascension, then they can’t be the same with just a different name. Some implied it was Christ covering our sins before the final judgment. When you use “Christ’s merits covers our sins” as the answer to what is intercession it suggests their may be an accounting or forensic basis for your understanding of salvation. Our ancestors often had that same understanding as did Martin Luther.
I was fortunate enough to be exposed to Graham Maxwell as well as others during my years at Loma Linda and the view of this being a forensic or an accounting transaction seems too restricted. My view now mostly revolves around a vindication of God and his character and not about our sins per se.
Hebrews 1:1 suggests that God uses different means and analogies to meet men where they are. I take this to mean that models we construct or that God gives are what was needed at the time to speak to the people about the mysteries of God not that they are indeed the whole truth God would like to share. It was what man could understand then. Let me take the sanctuary as an example that fits with this lesson.
Many, if not most Adventists, view the earthly sanctuary as a literal representation of the heavenly sanctuary. If so, which sanctuary? The Mosaic one, Solomon’s, the post exile sanctuary that became Herod’s temple or the one Ezekiel described in vision? An example of a difference is the Mosaic had a seven branched candlestick and two cherubim. Solomon’s had 10 candlesticks and four cherubim.
What is there in heaven? Is the sanctuary just where Christ is or where the Father is? Are the Father or the Son confined geographically after the resurrection? These are hard questions to answer if you have a strictly literal view. Most Adventist theologians and scholars don’t share this literalistic view. Many Adventists allow for a metaphorical view that these models that God gave represent what the solution to the sin problem is. Fortunately, the church has room for both views especially after the 2015 GC session when Fundamental Belief 24 was changed to not require a strict geographical representation in heaven.
AND Sometimes even inspired words appear contradictory. Examples might be Ezekiel’s vision of the temple and EGW’s vision of a temple in heaven and John in Revelation stating there is not temple in the New Jerusalem because God is with his people. My point is simply taking everything literally makes the mysteries of God seem like we have them all figured out. I know, I don’t. A great example is why God waited until 1844 to enter the final phase. I cannot think of what more evidence the unfallen angels needed to see the depths of God’s love and justice than the life and death of Christ. That is one of those mysteries I will ask about because it is part of God’s plan that I don’t understand. My box is clearly too small.
If you are not constrained by a literal model or one of the many models of atonement, then intercession and the sanctuary might have some interesting meanings. For example, in the New Testament Christ says he is the temple, that where two or three are gathered he is there, he is the bread, the light, the priest, the lamb, the judge, etc. The temple/sanctuary might very well be wherever God is as it was in Eden where God met with man.
Some of you suggested some interesting thoughts about intercession in your responses. One that resonated somewhat we me is that perhaps the intercession Christ does is with and in me. As I grow in my understanding He intercedes with me to show me more about the depth of His love for me as well as His plan for me to be his representative; his hands and feet to uplift all around me and show them the incomparable love he has for all of us. I am changed as He works expanding my view and allowing me to catch greater glimpses of what He desires of me.
It seems fitting that the final scenes in heaven revolve around the throne of God. Lucifer was a covering cherub and sin began there and then ends there when all acknowledge that God is love and His ways are best.
Perhaps we might do well to keep the big picture in mind. If we “can fit all the pieces of the puzzle in perfectly” in our understanding, allow for some latitude with our fellow followers of Christ who see it in a different perspective. While there is much to divide us, the characteristic that seems to define true followers of Christ is the love they have for one another. Some people will be attracted by our version of the truth. All will be attracted if we love like Christ loved.
These lessons will lead many to have difficult conversations because not everything hammered out by Uriah Smith is accepted by all of us who call ourselves Adventists. I pray that the differences we have are simply viewed as that and not as whether we are true Adventists.
I realize this is a long way from asking about intercession. The answers provided by you suggest that we have differences and not a little confusion. I pray these differences can be explored and enjoyed as we learn from each other. I know none of us understands as we ultimately will when we sit at the feet of Jesus and learn. The 1000 years might be needed for us to “unlearn as much as it will be to learn”.
Thank you Douglas for (a) your initial questions asking people to share their views and to elaborate on the terms they used, and (b) for subsequently providing your reflections and contemplations.
For a range of reasons, I pray and hope that the sentiments of your last paragraphs in particular are able to become a reality - both within this site and ultimately within the wider Adventist church.