Our High Priest (Part 2)
| Contents |
|
1. Introduction 2. The Ministry 2.1. Order and Pattern, Part 2 2.2. The Day of Atonement Ceremony 3. The Elements of Priesthood 3.1. Divine Science and The Priesthood 3.2. Divine Morality and The Priesthood 3.3. Divine Sonship and The Priesthood 4. Conclusion |
Introduction
Zahakiel: Luke, can you provide us with an opening prayer?
Qinael: Our holy and almighty
Father,
We offer you thanks for this
time you have provided for your children to come together in self-examination
and searching of the soul. We thank you
for the means you have provided, that though we be spread far apart, we may
come together as though in person and share your fellowship.
We ask that you pour out your
Spirit upon those present, both writer and readers, that the message given may
be effectual to the salvation and sanctification of all.
In the name of Yahshua we pray, and give thanks, for your oath to us is that you hear us as we obey you. Amen.
Zahakiel: Amen.
Rita: Amen.
Crystle: Amen.
Ye: Amen.
Pastor “Chick”: Amen.
Barb: Amen.
Happy Rock: Amen.
Zahakiel: This month’s study is a continuation of the discussion that we began last time. I will give a brief review here, but as the arguments, verses, and the quotes from Ellen White used to arrive at or support these points are all there in the previous transcript, I am not going to delve into them too deeply here.
In “Our High Priest – Part 1,” we began by looking at the nature of Yahshua, specifically three aspects:
1) His knowledge. We saw from the Scriptures that Yahshua had divine insight and foresight. He was led by the Holy Spirit to know things, and perform actions, that would have been impossible without a direct and active connection to the Father. At the same time, He was not, in any kind of absolute sense, omniscient in His human form, having taken on the nature of mankind, with its limitations and needs, in order to be not only our Substitute, but also our Example. This distinction should immediately become apparent to those of us who have been listening the weekly CSDA sermons that contrast traditional Adventism with the “New Theology.”
2) His morality. The Messiah came as One who was fully man as well as fully God. The “fully man” part is often made to be of lesser importance than His divine nature, yet the Sacrifice that Yahshua made on our behalf was only acceptable because of both these aspects of His character. As a Man, Yahshua was “temptable,” and we have the Gospel records that show this. He came in flesh that was subject to needs and desires, and these were avenues that the enemy of souls sought to exploit in order to turn the Savior away from His Source of strength. This Source was the Father, with whom He had covenanted to rely upon for the power to live and die according to the Plan of Salvation. It is only because Yahshua was truly free, a truly accountable moral Agent despite His divine nature, that He was an example which we may follow. Those who forget or lessen His humanity detract from the excellence of His moral character, which was based upon His choices. This is when they begin to ascribe to Him, while in human form, those very attributes (e.g., inherent omnipotence, omniscience, the inability to be genuinely tempted, absolute immortality) that He willingly surrendered for the very purpose of doing the work He did.
3) His begotten nature. The Scriptures make a clear distinction between the nature of Yahshua and the nature of created beings. I have actually answered a question recently online at another website, and I think it provides a nice summary of the issues involved here:
An individual was curious about my statement that Yahshua was not created, and he mentioned three verses that appear to indicate that He was a part of the creation, these statements being, “[Christ] is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature,” (Col 1:15) “These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God,” (Rev 3:14) and “When there were no depths, I was brought forth; when there were no fountains abounding with water.” (Prov 8:24, which describes “Wisdom,” and is generally – and rightly – applied to Christ)
Here is my response:
“A part of my reply to this stems from the fact that I am not, in the traditional sense, a Trinitarian. I do not believe that this paradigm sufficiently captures the fullness of the concept expressed by the Hebrew term Elohim, which is the word translated as “God” in English Bibles. I do believe that the Son ‘proceeded forth and came from’ the Father, (John 8:24) but that this is a fundamentally different concept from the idea of being created [either] ex nihilo, or from pre-existing material. For example, light was ‘created’ out of nothingness, and Adam was ‘created’ out of non-living matter. But Eve, on the other hand ‘came forth’ from Adam, a living being, and yet is said to have been there ‘from the beginning.’ (Mark 10:6)
“This is not a paradox; it reflects certain properties of the Godhead in that Man (as a creature, including both male and female) was formed in the ‘image’ (Heb. tselem - likeness, resemblance) of God: ‘So God created man in His own image, in the image of God created He him; male and female created He them.’ (Gen 1:27) Note how loosely the language uses the pronouns – ‘him’ and ‘them’ interchangeably - and this is not an arbitrary selection of wording.
“It is from this characteristic that we can say, without contradiction, that while the Son ‘came forth’ from the Father, there was never a ‘time’ when the Son was not. In other words, the Messiah’s ‘goings forth have been [...] from everlasting.’ (Mic 5:2) I know you wanted to keep this simple, so I will just give you a very small idea of how this may be envisioned. Our concept of time depends entirely upon the movement of matter through space. The hands of a clock, the vibration of crystals, the exchange of electrons through a conductor (including our brain matter that perceives the passage of time!)... but before the universe (including its spiritual components) was created, what would time mean? In fact, you must have time, space and matter simultaneously, for the three depend upon each other; basically, you can’t have a what without a where and a when :) Just as Eve came forth from Adam as an ‘image’ of Elohim, but was there from ‘the beginning,’ so the Son ‘came forth’ from the Father, but was there from ‘the beginning,’ which other verses, such as Micah, set before anything was ‘created’ in the sense of being generated from outside the direct Person of God.
“Jesus is described as ‘the beginning of the creation,’ (your verse from Rev 3) but this wording does not mean He is limited to the creation. In fact, we are specifically told He is not: ‘All things were made by Him; and without Him was not any thing made that was made.’ (John 1:3) The phrase ‘beginning of the creation’ does not mean that He was the first thing made. ‘Beginning’ in this case (from archae, which derives from our previously discussed word) generally means, ‘the person or thing that commences.’ A consistent translation would thus read actually read more along the lines of, ‘The Beginner of the creation.’ Here we have agreement with the many other verses that say precisely this.
“Similarly, the phrase ‘firstborn of all creation’ (Col 1:15) does not mean He is one of the created set, for it says right below, ‘And He is before all things, and by Him all things consist (i.e., are sustained).’ (verse 17) Christ is considered both the creative and sustaining Agency of the universe, and unless we resort to such terms as ‘self-created,’ we should probably stick to the Biblical expression ‘self-existing,’ which (not coincidentally) is the very name of God: YHWH, ‘I am that exists.’ Christ’s words, even when He was incarnate, reflect a view that is outside the boundaries of time, saying, for example, ‘Before Abraham, I AM,’ (John 8:58) not ‘I was,’ and that, just by itself, means as long as YAHWEH, there was the Being who addressed His audience that day.
“Finally Proverbs 8 is a parabolic reference to Christ. That is a very important factor, because it means that while we can (and should) extract many characteristics of His personality from the passage, not every detail applies. For example, ‘Wisdom’ is repeatedly referred to as ‘She,’ while the actual Christ (in every manifestation) fulfills a distinctly male role. Again we read of Wisdom, ‘While as yet [God] had not made the earth [...] when [He] prepared the heavens, I was there,’ while later passages tell us that the Person of Christ was the one who did these things. Even if we ignore the idea that ‘brought forth’ does not mean ‘created,’ (for men and women do not create children, another word is used for another concept entirely) we are still left with a number of characteristics in Proverbs 8 that cannot be consistently applied to the Son; therefore this verse should not be used to support the idea that He was not ‘non-created.’”
Zahakiel: Are there any questions about any of that?
Ye: No
Qinael: No.
Rita: None.
Barb: No.
Zahakiel: The next thing we did last month was look at the Sanctuary, demonstrating that the spiritual Tabernacle in Heaven was the prototype upon which the earthly was based, and that Yahshua’s ministerial work for the Atonement continues there to this day.
Finally, we began to look at the Ministry in that Heavenly Sanctuary, and we’re going to continue this week to tie those aspects of Yahshua that we saw last time, and that are summarized above, to the work that is being done in this sacred location.
The Ministry
Order and Pattern, Part 2
Zahakiel: We ended last time by showing that Yahshua is a High Priest according to the Order of Melchizedek, in that the priesthood and Priest in both cases both share common characteristics. Yet when it comes to describing the work that the High Priest does, the record that exists of Melchizedek’s actual activities give us little on which to build any doctrine. We do find, however, that there is no need to attempt this. The Book of Hebrews makes it very clear that the work Yahshua is doing is patterned after the Levitical rituals, and this includes the “Cleaning of the Sanctuary” ceremony of Leviticus 16 involving the Yahweh-goat and the Azazel-goat that we’ve looked at in previous studies, in The Highway of Holiness, Vol. 1, and various other places.
But now here, Evangelical Christianity teaches that the Messiah fulfilled the role of both the Yahweh goat and the Azazel goat. This is absolutely impossible if Biblical symbolism has any consistency at all. They will say, for example, that when the sins of the world were laid upon Yahshua, He became the “scapegoat” (a poor translation of the Hebrew word) and went into the “wilderness” of Hell for our sakes. Some will even adopt the entirely spiritualistic view that since Yahshua is an “infinite Being,” He actually suffered “eternal torment” on our behalf in the time that He was dead… showing a misunderstanding of at least four doctrines all at once: the state of the dead, the nature of hell, the cleansing of the Heavenly Sanctuary as typified in Leviticus, and the meaning of the sacrifice offered at the cross.
All we need to do is look at the pattern.
The Day of Atonement Ceremony
Zahakiel: Here is the image from Highway of Holiness that we can use to trace the Day of Atonement ceremony:
Let me know when you have had a chance to look it over a little.
Qinael: Done.
Barb: Ok.
Rita: Done.
Ye: Ok.
Crystle: Finished.
Zahakiel: In the daily sanctuary service [0] the sacrifices for sins were slain at the altar of sacrifice. Some of the blood was taken into the tabernacle and placed on the curtain representing sanctified Araphel, the “thick darkness” (1Kings 8:12) that Yahweh uses to shield His consuming glory from sinners so that they have an opportunity to repent and be converted.
During the Day of Atonement ceremony, the Yahweh goat is slain first (Lev 16:9) [1] and then an atonement is made for the Most Holy Place. (Lev 16:15, 16) [2] Next, the blood is placed upon the Altar of Incense, (Lev 16:18, 19) [3] to purify it. Finally, “when he hath made an end of reconciling the holy place,” (verse 20) then he goes to the live goat, confesses the forsaken sins upon its head, and sends it off into the wilderness. (Lev 16:21) [4]
The order here is important. The Yahweh goat is slain, atonement is made for the holy place and its instruments, and lastly the Azazel goat is sent away to die. You should immediately see the problem Evangelicals have in identifying both goats as Yahshua… they must alter the perfect, divinely ordained sequence of events in order to correspond with the faulty interpretation of the ceremony’s meaning.
Recall that when Yahshua was resurrected, after He supposedly went into the “wilderness of hell” for our sins, He said to Mary Magdalene, “I am not yet ascended to my Father.” (John 20:17) Hebrews tells us that it is not until His resurrection and ascension to Heaven that the Messiah undertook His priestly role, (Heb 5:8-10; 9:11, 12; 10:12-20) there (and then) to offer sacrifices for humanity behind the sacred veil.
Zahakiel: In the Biblical pattern we have this order: Sacrifices are daily offered for sin, the Yahweh goat is slain, the Sanctuary is purified, the Azazel goat receives the guilt of sins, the Azazel goat is sent away to die. In the Evangelical pattern we have this order, with both goats representing the same figure: the Azazel goat receives the guilt of sins, the Yahweh goat is slain, the Azazel goat is sent away to die, the Sanctuary is purified, Sacrifices are daily offered for sin (as Christ applies His blood daily for newly committed acts of willful transgression).
Instead of 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, the Evangelicals order it 3, 1, 4, 2, 0. Not a single step is in its right sequence, and all because the nature of the Atonement is not understood.
Does everyone see this?
Rita : Yes.
Ye: Yes.
Zahakiel: Clearly, the Cross is meant to fulfill not the entire process of the Atonement, but only step 1, the supreme sacrifice by which the Atonement must be offered. Now, it is true that every step toward purifying the Sanctuary requires the blood of the Yahweh-goat, so the significance of the sacrifice is not in the least bit diminished by putting it first in the list of Atonement events.
But now, we must deal with a verse that has been used to describe the entire atonement process as a past event, with only the significance (and not the actual steps) going forward as needed.
We read, here that, “we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement.” (Rom 5:11)
So they say, “It clearly reads that we ‘have now received’ the atonement, meaning it is a past event of which we now experience the benefits.”
The problem with using Romans 5:11 that way is that the context of the statement forbids the understanding of the word “atonement” there to mean what it does in Leviticus 16 and the rest of the Bible. That word in Romans is a word that means primarily “an exchange,” and although the Greek term appears several times in the New Testament manuscripts, this verse is the only place it is translated that way. This word, by itself, means nothing about making a “covering” for sin, which is how the term is used in the Old Testament, or a “uniting” with the Father, which is what the term implies by usage. For example, in Romans 11 we read that the reconciliation (same word) of the world was accomplished by the “casting away” of the Jews. (Rom 11:15) Obviously, this term has nothing to do with the cleansing of the Sanctuary or the purging of sin on a cosmic (or even personal) scale.
Further, Romans 5:10, the verse above the one in question, uses another form of the same word to tell us, “For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of His Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by His life.” (Rom 5:10)
Zahakiel: Paul’s argument, right from the text, is that by the death of Christ an “exchange” has been made: death for life, peace for hostility. But the apostle is not there speaking of the full process of atonement, only the benefits we can claim even in this life. He is not speaking, for example, of the judgment that will face every man at the return of the Messiah, (2Cor 5:10) or the destruction of Lucifer that will finally consume the last of sin and sinners in the universe. (Mal 4:1, Rev 20:10) These are also aspects of the atonement process. In essence, therefore, we find that just as there is a distinction between the order and the pattern of Yahshua’s office as High Priest, so there is a distinction between the Sacrifice offered for the atonement and the subsequent process of actually atoning the creation to the Creator. You cannot use a Greek term to describe a Hebrew concept without being very careful.
Further, just as we saw in past New Moon studies that the Bible’s writers use the word “saved” in different ways, so the different words used for “atonement” may convey different meanings. We may draw the meaning, however, despite the wording used, that just as we have been saved, are being saved, and will be saved, (and all three are true in their correct setting) so we have been atoned (by the Sacrifice that Paul was addressing in Romans 5), are being atoned (by the current work of the High Priest), and ultimately will be atoned when the process is finally completed, including the sending away of the Azazel-goat, who must be identified as Lucifer, into the wilderness of destruction.
What I want us to draw from this discussion of the priesthood is this main point: The Cross is the great event by which the universal atonement may be offered, but it is only to the extent that we understand what the Almighty was telling us by the pattern in Leviticus 16 that the true means by which sin is expunged from the creation becomes clear.
Are there any questions about this?
Qinael: No.
Rita: None.
Ye: No.
The Elements of Priesthood
Zahakiel: We are now going to look at the three aspects of the High Priest that we saw earlier, and see how they relate to the office of the eternal priesthood we have been examining.
Divine Science and The Priesthood
Zahakiel: 1) Non-Omniscience – The non-omniscient nature of the Son is important to the moral weight of the Sacrifice He offered. We are told in both the Bible and the Spirit of Prophecy that Yahshua obeyed the Law as a man, and surrendered His life for us as the “last Adam.” (1Cor 15:45) This very comparison demonstrates that in everything pertaining to the life and sacrifice offered, Yahshua stood in the place of our first parent, succeeding where he failed. Yahshua became one of our “kind;” He learned as we may learn, obeyed as we may obey, and knew precisely what we may know through connection with the Father, opening up for us the same access to the omnipotent power of Heaven by faith that He Himself experienced. (Phil 4:13)
This aspect is also important to the Priestly office, because the Messiah must, indeed, continue to “minister” to humanity until the close of probation. The sacrifice was “once offered,” yes, but the ministry continues as we walk the path of sanctification – finding and rejecting previously unknown transgressions. While some groups teach that the Cross, by completing the entire atonement process, was provided for all the sins of the Christian (past AND future) the Scriptures specify something entirely different, stating clearly, and with no contextual qualifiers that “God hath set [Yahshua] forth to be a propitiation through faith in His blood, to declare His righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God,” (Rom 3:25) and this is the gift of “grace” as described in verse 24.
Again, in saying that the Father accepted the Son’s sacrifice for sins of all time, past and future, this makes the continuing ministry of Yahshua essentially a “puppet show” for the Universe. In this view, Yahshua is offering a service for those whose sins have already been dealt with (in terms of blotted out) from the beginning or, at the latest, from the cross.
Divine Morality and The Priesthood
Zahakiel: 2) Temptability – This aspect has obvious importance to the sacrifice, in that Yahshua truly had to overcome temptation on our behalf. Again, there are no “puppet shows” in true Christian theology.
In terms of the continuing ministry, the Book of Hebrews tells us that from the perspective of divine justice, Yahshua, “though He were a Son, yet learned He obedience by the things which He suffered. And being made perfect, He became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey Him; called of God an High Priest after the order of Melchisedec.” (Heb 5:8-10)
Here the author clearly links Yahshua’s experience on earth to His suitability (the word “perfect” there signifies aptness or consecration) as a High Priest for our sakes. This was done as a true demonstration, from the perspective of the Great Controversy, of the groundless nature of Lucifer’s claims. Far from being a mere show, in which the players are going through rote motions, Yahshua’s genuine victory over sin and the tempter showed in a very real way that the Law of Elohim is far from being an unreasonable set of requirements, but the path to true success and everlasting life.
Are there any questions about these first two applications?
Qinael: No.
Rita: No.
Crystle: No questions thus far.
Ye: No.
Divine Sonship and The Priesthood
Zahakiel: 3) Begotten – This aspect is important for the sacrifice in that the symbolism of “another” must be offered for sin. Yahshua IS the Creator, and further, since the accusations of the rebellious angels are that Yahweh’s character is unjust, it takes One who is of the same character of the Father to answer these claims. No created being could answer the accusations directed to the Almighty; as it is written, “That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.” (Rom 3:4) Here is amazing justice; just as the redeemed sinner will point to Yahshua and say, “He is accepted on my behalf,” so the Father Himself will point to the Son and say, “Have I not answered all questions pertaining to my law and character through the sacrifice of my Son?”
Time and again, the Almighty says to His people, “testify against me.” (Mic 6:3) But at the name of “Yahshua” every knee shall bow, because there will be no testimony to bring against the Most High when His begotten Son inherits the Throne of Eternity and He receives worship through the Person of this King. (Rev 3:21) Those who bow before the Son on the Throne say “Hallelu-Yah,” or “Praise be to Yah.” (Rev 19:1)
In another sense, if we may speak of “human terms” as they relate to the Godhead, a man may rightly die for his own crimes, but to offer one’s son is an unbearable cost. Yahweh identifies completely with the Person of His Son, saying in the prophecies, “they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for Him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn.” (Zech 12:10 – note the change in pronouns from “me” to “him”)
Zahakiel: For the eternal ministry, the “begotten” aspect of Yahshua is important, because the Son is appointed to fill a role that only divinity can rightly hold. At the same time the Father, could not offer Himself as a sacrifice, because (understanding the true meaning of “death”) if the all of Elohim were to cease to exist Himself, even temporarily, nothing would be left to redeem. But a Son, considered equal to the Father, yet separate in Person from Him, is able to pay this price while a Father remains as a Sustainer. We are told that while the Son was truly “dead,” it was the Father that raised Him back to life by the Holy Spirit.
Not only is the divine nature of the Son necessary for the moral and spiritual value of the Sacrifice He offered, but we must remember that having a sacrifice offered on one’s behalf does not, itself, atone him or her to Yahweh. The sacrifice is the act of forgiveness, but the sacrifice must subsequently be accepted, and the life must thereby be altered, bringing the individual into unity (at-one-ment) with the Creator. The way in which we do this is by partaking of the very divinity of the one who was raised from the dead. Peter tells us that by the promises of Yahweh to us in Christ we “might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.” (2Pet 1:4) The word “divine” there comes directly from the Greek word theos which means, specifically, “God” or a deity. We partake of the theos-nature of the Son, not becoming gods ourselves, but as one with Him in intimacy and bestowed dignity. A proper understanding of that word, and this passage, and what it means for us, entirely removes from possibility the idea that Yahshua was ever a created being.
Zahakiel: If a sacrifice of some creature was the only thing necessary for the completion of the atonement process, any creature could be offered on behalf of another – in fact, the blood of goats would eventually suffice, if an infinite number were continually sacrificed through ceaseless ages. Does everyone understand this? If the blood of a mere creature, and not a son, was all that was required, and the sacrifice itself was the atonement in total, then enough sacrifices would eventually be “good enough.”
Rita: Yes.
Zahakiel: Sheep and goats are created beings, and if a “better” creature than those under the Levitical system was required, Yahweh could have simply raised any creation to the level of dignity necessary to compensate for the sins of all men if, again, a mere creature’s death was what the Father desired. Yahweh is able to bestow upon creatures greater or lesser honor by His very decree. (John 15:13, Isa 55:11) But we read that He does not desire sacrifice even (and this is important) the death of a human’s son to atone for his sins. “Will Yahweh be pleased with thousands of rams, or with ten thousands of rivers of oil? Shall I give my firstborn for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?” (Micah 6:7)
The answer is clearly “No,” for the next verse tells us what Yahweh requires: “He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth Yahweh require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?” (verse 8)
It is the character that is important for salvation, and no sacrifice of mere creatures could provide the “new and living way,” (Heb 10:20) because “where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the Testator.” (Heb 9:16) No sacrifice of a created being could pay the infinite cost of transgressing an eternal and unchangeable law, and as a side-note, since we are speaking about the unchangeable nature of the Law, we find that Sunday-keeping, that mark of loyalty to human authority, constitutes a terrible kind of hostility toward God It (by saying “the Law has been changed”) sets at naught the unchangeable nature of the commandments, which is the very reason the Son had to die.
Zahakiel: This display of the un-alterable nature of the Law, and this revelation of Yahweh’s character in the person of His Son, and this willingness to offer Himself on our behalf to pay the wages of sin form the very cornerstone of the priestly office, the ministry based upon the merits of that sacrifice.
Further, the begotten theos-nature of the Son is the very thing that allows us, by extension, to be called the “sons of God,” (1John 3:1) although in our case we are adopted rather than begotten. (Rom 8:15) We note also that in Romans 8:23, the term “adoption” takes on characteristics of “saved” and “atoned,” for Paul writes that we are “waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.” (Rom 8:23) We might say, then, to be consistent, that we have been adopted, are being adopted, and shall be adopted; and this aspect of how Bible uses redemption-related terms is very important for clearing up a lot of false doctrines. We are saved, adopted and atoned by faith in the work that Yahweh had done on our behalf. We are currently in the process of being saved, adopted and atoned by submission to the ongoing ministry of the Son in the Heavenly tabernacle. Finally, we will be saved, adopted and atoned in an ultimate, visible and irreversible sense when we receive our new bodies and our manifest inheritance upon the return of Yahshua after His Priestly ministry is complete.
Zahakiel: Is everyone clear on this?
Rita: Yes.
Pastor “Chick”: Yes
Qinael: Yes.
Barb: Yes.
Ye: Yes.
Conclusion
Zahakiel: In conclusion, it is only by understanding these things, at least to the degree that we are able to tell falsehood from truth, that we may know the true character of the Father and Son. Realizing how these things work reveal, among other things, the purpose and mercy underlying the task of the Investigative Judgment, the nature of Hellfire as a cleansing rather than a vengeful act (as an integral part of the Atonement ritual, and not as “punishment” after it is completed), the unchanging nature of the Law of Yahweh and, perhaps most importantly, the willingness of our Father in Heaven to provide every possible opportunity for men to be drawn to Him and thereby be saved.
Are there any questions about this topic before we close?
Rita: None.
Qinael: No.
Pastor “Chick”: No.
Ye: No.
Zahakiel: Ok. Pastor, please offer a closing prayer.
Pastor “Chick”: Dear Father in Heaven,
We are thankful for the simplicity of the Good News. We see the perfect plan of salvation in symbols, and learn of the unfathomable love of YAH. We thank You that our salvation in Christ as Sacrifice and High Priest is a surety, as we behold Him who is our Life.
Bless the remainder of our day and Sabbath to come, for we ask all of this and praise You in the holy name of YAHshua, AMEN.
Rita: Amen.
Zahakiel: Amen.
Qinael: Amen.
Barb: Amen.
Ye: Amen.
