New Moon Meeting: May 2007, 3:05 EST
Our High Priest (Part 1)

Contents

1. Introduction
2. The Nature of The Priest
     2.1. The Science of Yahshua
     2.2. The Moral Nature of Yahshua
     2.3. The Begotten Nature of Yahshua
3. The Sanctuary
4. The Ministry
     4.1. Order and Pattern
5. Closing and Prayer

Introduction

Qinael: Our most holy and righteous Father,

We offer thanks to you for the great privilege of coming together in fellowship on this New Moon, despite our diverse locations. We thank you for the spirit of this time, one of searching out the depths and heights of your character, that we may ever more perfectly reflect it to the world around us.

We ask that your presence be with us in this meeting, opening minds and hearts to the truths you have for us.

We thank you in advance, knowing that you have heard our petitions and answered them according to thy will. In the name of Yahshua we pray, amen.

Rita: Amen.

Zahakiel: Amen.

Barb: Amen.

Pastor “Chick”: Amen

Crystle: Amen.

Zahakiel: This month’s study is called “Our High Priest,” and it is going to cover a few topics, central to which is the concept of the Atonement. This is a subject we have discussed several times, although relatively briefly, during out Feast of Unleavened Bread a couple weeks ago; we have also made mention of it during last New Moon, when we were examining differences between the non-binding 1872 statement of Adventist doctrines and the creedal 2007 28 Fundamental Beliefs of neo-Adventism.

As we will see in the section on the Atonement, the 1872 statement of faith was careful to include the statement that Yahshua “ascended on high to be our only mediator in the sanctuary in Heaven, where, with his own blood, he makes atonement for our sins; which atonement, so far from being made on the cross, which was but the offering of the sacrifice, is the very last portion of his work as priest, according to the example of the Levitical priesthood, which foreshadowed and prefigured the ministry of our Lord in Heaven.” [emphasis added] This is in marked contrast with most of the Christian world, yet as we will see this is the correct view of the Atonement as prefigured in the Old Testament, administered under the Melchizedek priesthood, described in the New Testament, and validated by the modern lives and practices of the saints.

During a discussion last Sabbath morning, Luke and I were discussing the definition of a “fundamental error.” Early Adventist writers such as James White wrote that Sunday-sacredness, non-immersive baptism, the Trinity doctrine, consciousness in death, eternal torment in hell and so on were to be classed as fundamental errors. [Review and Herald, Sept. 12, 1854, Vol. 6, No. 5, P 36] It is doctrinal failings such as these that lead to the condition known as Babylon and, if in such a spiritual state an ecclesiastical organization joins itself to the world, it “falls,” and necessitates a coming-out.

Zahakiel: As we were talking, I gave an explanation for what makes an error “fundamental” in nature, saying, “A Fundamental Error […] is one that alters doctrines in such a way as to affect [the] mode of worship. It changes the way Yahweh is seen, and how His actions toward humans are interpreted. For example, the idea that Christ in human form was omniscient is a fundamental error… because it alters the way we view His sacrifice. The idea that the atonement was completed on the cross is [a fundamental error], because it completely alters (destroys) the Adventist view of the Atonement that appears in Hebrews. Agreeing with a Church/State union is a great fundamental error because, like eternal hell, it changes [our understanding of] the way Yahweh deals with sin and sinners, and this is a core aspect of His revealed character.”

The reason why understanding the atonement to be completed at the cross is a fundamental error is explained in the book The Highway of Holiness that we used during the Feast, but I will mention it here also, while at the same time looking at it from the perspective of Christ’s role as High Priest on our behalf. Certain portions of this study are going to contain a fair amount of quotes from Ellen White as well as from the Bible, which is sort of unusual for me, but the truth is that this is one of those Adventist-specific topics that come up from time to time. My goal here is to first clear up the SDA understanding of these matters so that we can thereafter teach the Scriptures in unity, being un-corrupted by the errors in interpretation that have come into our experience from what ought to have been a trusted source of commentary.

Are there any questions about this month’s topic?

Rita: None so far.

Crystle: None here.

Ye: No.

Qinael: No.

The Nature of The Priest

Zahakiel: The nature of Christ as a High Priest depends, obviously, upon His nature in general. In particular, the role He adopted on our behalf has much to do with who He is as a divine Person; and even among Adventists there is confusion about this. There are three errors in particular about Yahshua’s humanity that I want to deal with here before discussing His role as a High Priest, although – to be sure – there are others that may also be discussed. The three are these: 1) the omniscient nature of Yahweh and how this relates to the Son, 2) the moral nature of Yahshua and 3) the begotten nature of Yahshua. Finally, we will see how these three apply to His office as Mediator.

The Science of Yahshua

Zahakiel: First, the idea that Christ is (in human form) omniscient comes from a simplistic view of what it means to be Divine, and failing to take into account the effects of incarnation.

We read, for example, one of the clearest Scriptural statements about the divinity of the Messiah here, “And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.” (1Tim 3:16) Here, and in other places, the Son of Man is declared to be “God” manifest in the flesh. He is separate from the Father, to be sure, being described as “the brightness of [His] glory, and the express image of His person.” (Heb 1:3) Yet at the same time He is equal with the Father, (Phil 2:6) and that same verse says that the Son is in the “form” of God, a word in Greek that may be used to describe the likeness between parents and children.

“So,” some reason, “since the Son is fully God, and since the Scriptures declare that ‘God […] knoweth all things,’ (1John 3:20) then the Son likewise must be omniscient.” As usual, Adventists who adopt these and other strange positions will search through Ellen White’s writings seeking justification; and, often as not, they will find a statement or set of statements that appears to be saying what they have accepted as true, and thus dig for themselves a formidable pit. She herself warned of this, saying, “There are some, who upon accepting erroneous theories, strive to establish them by collecting from my writings statements of truth, which they use, separated from their proper connection and perverted by association with error.” [Letter 136, April 27, 1906]

We see examples of this tendency in Adventist history by such figures as J. H. Kellogg, and in modern practice by those independent ministries that seek to draw away from an organized Church structure by citing the badly-wrested “little companies” quote from her writings. We find also many using her statement that “The church may appear as about to fall, but it does not fall” [Selected Messages Book 2, p. 380] to justify staying within a fallen organization that is entirely different in doctrine, practice and character from the Church about which Mrs. White wrote those words. Amazingly, then, we find Ellen White’s writings used to justify both leaving the Adventist Church AND staying within it. This is the kind of confusion one must expect when both the leaders and laity tend to go to extremes, and believe they have the spiritual insight to derive truth from inspired writings while living lives free of true moral victory.

Zahakiel: On the matter of the Son’s omniscience, it is clear that Yahshua knew things that no ordinary humans would know. Yet the Bible also tells us how He knew these things. The Holy Spirit, His very essence and life, led Him to knowledge and actions – but in this specific thing Yahshua is not different from the born-again believer. This is the problem… those who believe Yahshua was omniscient in His human form do not understand the mechanism by which He knew many things, because they themselves have not had their minds renewed by the Spirit, even the Spirit of Prophecy that is to be poured out on all believers in these last days. (Joel 2:29)

We read, “And there came a voice from Heaven, saying, ‘Thou art my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.’ And immediately the Spirit driveth Him into the wilderness.” (Mark 1:11, 12) This is how Yahshua knew the things He knew; not because He had any innate knowledge of every single thing… the idea that a human brain could contain all knowledge is mysticism, not Christianity… it is (further) spiritualism to identify Yahshua with the Holy Spirit to the degree that His humanity is lost. On specific occasions Yahshua could see “with omniscient eye,” as Ellen White once wrote, only as He came into conscious union with His Father. It was by faith, not direct divine sight, that He knew He would die and be raised again on the third day. In fact, we read, for example, of Him in the garden of Gethsemane, “He prays for strength to endure the test in behalf of humanity. He must Himself gain a fresh hold on Omnipotence, for only thus can He contemplate the future.” [The Desire of Ages (1898), p. 419, par. 4] In this Ellen White lays open the mechanism by which Yahshua gained His foreknowledge; it was by laying hold on the power of the Father, and “only thus,” or only in that way, could He know of the future.

The Bible, of course, makes these things plain. We read of the Messiah “marveling” at having certain things revealed to Him, (Mat 8:10, Mark 6:6) confessing ignorance about certain aspects of His ministry’s end, (Mark 13:32) and discovering a problem arising among the disciples at the time when it arose – and not before. (Mark 8:17)

Adventist writings have always made it plain that Yahshua had no advantage over humanity (of which qualities omniscience and active omnipotence would be decided advantages!) in order to properly be our Example in this world. A few relevant statements include:

“Jesus revealed no qualities, and exercised no powers, that men may not have through faith in Him. His perfect humanity is that which all His followers may possess, if they will be in subjection to God as He was.” [The Desire of Ages, p. 664]

“Jesus, the world’s Redeemer, could only keep the commandments of God in the same way that humanity can keep them.” [The SDA Bible Commentary, vol. 7, p. 929]

“If Christ had a special power which it is not the privilege of man to have, Satan would have made capital of this matter. The work of Christ was to take from the claims of Satan his control of man, and He could only do this in the way that He came – a man, tempted as a man, rendering the obedience of a man.” [The SDA Bible Commentary, vol. 7, p. 930]

Zahakiel: It is true that the attributes of Godhood were His by right, but in coming to earth the Scriptures tell us that Yahshua, taking on the “fashion” of a man, “humbled Himself.” (Phil 2:8) The word there indicates an emptying of self in order to properly fulfill a purpose. Ellen White wrote that Christ was “cumbered with humanity,” the precise meaning of cumber being, “To hamper or hinder, as by being in the way.” [The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition, Copyright © 2006 by Houghton Mifflin Company]

In addition, and in one of the clearest passages that demonstrates the aspects of the Messiah’s knowledge, she writes (and say when you’re finished), “[Yahshua’s] education was gained from Heaven-appointed sources, from useful work, from the study of the Scriptures, from nature, and from the experiences of life – God’s lesson books, full of instruction to all who bring to them the willing hand, the seeing eye, and the understanding heart. His intimate acquaintance with the Scriptures shows how diligently His early years were given to the study of God’s Word. And spread out before Him was the great library of God’s created works. He who had made all things studied the lessons which His own hand had written in earth and sea and sky. Apart from the unholy ways of the world, He gathered stores of scientific knowledge from nature […] Thus to Jesus the significance of the Word and the works of God was unfolded, as He was trying to understand the reason of things. Heavenly beings were His attendants, and the culture of holy thoughts and communings was His. From the first dawning of intelligence He was constantly growing in spiritual grace and knowledge of truth […] Every child may gain knowledge as Jesus did.” [Child Guidance, pp. 50, 51, ephases added]

Pastor “Chick”: Finished.

Qinael: Finished.

Rita: Done.

Barb: Finished.

Crystle: Finished.

Happy Rock: Ok.

Ye: Ok.

Qinael: If I’m not mistaken, I think I first read that quote, or large parts of it, in Desire of Ages some time ago...

Zahakiel: It’s probably there also :)

Qinael: It’s interesting that the strongest quotes against this idea come from the same book as the one statement that’s misused. Somewhat like 1 John, really.

Zahakiel: Right.

Guerline: Even the knowledge of the Father Yahshua was our perfect example learning how we can learn. Is that right?

Zahakiel: Right, that’s what the quote above indicates. Yes.

Not to go on too long on this section, the knowledge of the Messiah, then, must be viewed as one of Divine Science, a term Ellen White uses in several places for the demonstration of the Spirit of God and the power behind prayer and ministry. [Our High Calling, p. 364; The Review and Herald, November 11, 1915] Divine science, (or knowledge) and not Omniscience, characterizes the mind of the Son of God. We, remember, are to have the “mind of Christ.” (1Cor 2:16) It does not mean that we know all things, (1Cor 13:2) but that we know all things pertaining to our ability to “live godly.” (2Pet 1:3, 2Tim 3:12) There is a distinction between these two ideas, and we will see that in addition to being a very real distinction, it is also one of some spiritual importance.

Are there any questions about this concept?

Qinael: No.

Barb: No.

Ye: No.

Rita: No.

Crystle: None here.

The Moral Nature of Yahshua

Zahakiel: The topic of Yahshua’s moral nature is one with which we need not spend a lot of time, because this is discussed in a number of places in our writings when we deal with the nature of sin and temptation. Yahshua was “without sin” as the Scriptures indicate; yet we know that He was tempted and, accordingly tempt-able.

Now Ellen White wrote of Christ that, “He could have sinned; He could have fallen, but not for one moment was there in Him an evil propensity.” [The Faith I Live By, page 49]

Some have had difficulty with this idea, interpreting the statement that He had no “evil propensity” to mean that He could not possibly desire something outside of the will of the Father. This would be a contradiction in terms, since the Scriptures declare (James 1:14) that temptation consists of being “enticed” by a desire (inaccurately rendered as “lust” by the lexicon of modern readers). The Messiah did not “desire” to die on the Cross, as evidenced by His struggle in Gethsemane. At times He “desired” rest, to the point of feeling some frustration when being denied His hoped-for season of refreshing; further evidence that He did not know every detail of His ministry’s course. [The Ministry of Healing, page 57] There were times, such as these, when the Father’s will contrasted with what He of Himself would be doing; it is at these times in particular when the divine character shines through most clearly, for we find the Master denying Himself and submitting to the needful work, an example that we His people also follow.

There is, as we have said often enough before, a difference between being tempted and being a transgressor. Yahshua was the former, and never the latter. He had no propensities toward evil – and this does not mean “no capacity for temptation.” That word means that He had no tendency to actually do wrong. A male, married, born-again Christian may be “tempted” to adultery by encountering an attractive woman who shows him some interest; but, because Yahshua’s Spirit is within him, he has no tendency to actually perform the sinful actions. This is the same thing as saying that he has no “propensity” toward adultery, though he may be tempted in this and other points.

Does everyone understand this distinction between tempt-ability and propensities?

Rita: Yes.

Ye: Yes.

Barb: Yes.

Crystle: Yes.

Zahakiel: The problem with neo-Adventism is that they will say that Yahshua came “in the likeness of sinful flesh,” (Rom 8:3) stressing the word “likeness,” and reading this to mean almost something like, “He appeared to be human, but was fundamentally different in His moral composition.” This is an error. The word “likeness” there means more than just outward appearance. It means similar to the point of practical identification with the thing it represents. “Jesus,” they now teach, “did not actually take on the fallen nature of man, but took on the pre-fall nature of Adam.”

Ellen White has this to say about that matter, describing the revelation of the Plan of Salvation to the holy angels when our first parents transgressed:

“Jesus also told them that they should have a part to act, to be with him, and at different times strengthen him. That he should take man’s fallen nature, and his strength would not be even equal with theirs.” [Spiritual Gifts, Volume 1 (1858), p. 25, paragraph 1]

That, and other, similar statements, should settle that matter for us. Are there any questions at this point?

Rita: None.

Ye: no

Barb: no

Crystle: None

The Begotten Nature of Yahshua

Zahakiel: Many in Adventist circles know of A. Graham Maxwell. I myself have heard, and would recommend (with some cautions) his series of talks on the 66 books of the Bible from an Adventist perspective. In my early years in the Church (both the mainstream SDA body and the CSDA movement), I learned a great deal – much of it of continuing and considerable value – from his work, but this is not to say that his doctrines are by any means completely free of error.

His acceptance of the Trinity, for example, leads him to take the position that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are three independent God-beings who, in response to the fall of man, decided among themselves (perhaps after some discussion) who would play the “role” of the Father, who would play the “role” of the Son, and who would play the “role” of the intangible Advocate.

Trinitarians do not truly see Yahshua as the “begotten Son” of God. Of course, they will use those words. Of course, they will claim, “If the Bible says it, I believe it, even if I can’t understand it.” But there is a problem with this approach to the Word. If we ignore the symbols that Yahweh has given His people to explain concepts to us (like the relationship between a husband and wife representing the Godhead – 1Cor 11:3) then we are forced to rely on purely human (or, in some cases, demonic) theories to supplement our view of the One whom we are worshipping. As we saw in a previous New Moon study, there is a consequence to the things we believe, particularly about the Creator.

“The Eternal Father, the unchangeable one, gave his only begotten Son, tore from his bosom Him who was made in the express image of his person, and sent him down to earth to reveal how greatly he loved mankind.” [The Review and Herald, July 9, 1895] Like Eve from Adam, the Son “came forth” from the Father. The Son was in, and of, and with, the “Eternal Father,” thus placing Him in eternity as without beginning of days. If the Father had “made” the Son from nothingness, as He did the earth, then the Son would have been a created being. If the Father had “formed” the Son from pre-existing elements, as He did mankind, then the Son would have been a created being. If the Father had spoken the Son into existence, as He did the light of the universe, then the Son would be a created being. But none of these things are true; the Son “proceeded forth and came from God,” (John 8:42) who is eternal, and thus it is rightly said, His “goings forth [have been] from everlasting.” (Mic 5:2)

Zahakiel: There was never a time when the Son was not, either as a separate Being or as an integral aspect of the Father from whom He was “torn.” Similarly, from the “beginning” there was Eve, (Gen 1:27) although she came forth from Adam at a later point in the history of the world. (Gen 2:22) It is somewhat futile to even speak of “time” with respect to the Godhead, yet we know that there was an act of “begetting” that describes the characteristics of the Son that is completely separate from a “creative” act in both timeline and nature. The Son came forth “from everlasting,” and not at any point in what we would understand as “time;” and further, He came forth from the very “Self” of the self-existent and eternal Father, and not (via a creative act) from nothingness or from any independent source or location.

Are there any questions about the distinction made between a “created” being and one that is “begotten?”

Rita: None.

Barb: No.

Ye: No.

Happy Rock: No.

The Sanctuary

Zahakiel: Now that we have examined those three aspects of Yahshua’s character, we will turn briefly to the matter of the Sanctuary before looking at the nature of His ministry. This is necessary, because the Heavenly Sanctuary is the location at which this work takes place.

We read these familiar Scriptures, “And Yahweh spake unto Moses, saying, […] ‘let them make me a Sanctuary; that I may dwell among them. According to all that I shew thee, after the pattern of the tabernacle, and the pattern of all the instruments thereof, even so shall ye make it.’” (Exo 25:1, 8, 9) “Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, ‘See,’ saith He, ‘that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount.’” (Heb 8:5b)

Some have held that this Sanctuary was made after a “vision” that Moses saw; that is, after a vision of something that was purely symbolic, and not real. Further, they hold that the significance of the prophecies related to its cleansing (as mentioned in the Book of Daniel) refer to an already-past event in Jewish history, and not to an end-of-days judgment as Adventists teach it.

Daniel received a vision in which he heard the statement, “Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed.” (Dan 8:14) Now, the reason the sanctuary needs to be “cleansed” is because “the daily […] was taken away, and the place of His sanctuary was cast down [and] the transgression of desolation” had interrupted the prescribed worship of Yahweh among His people. (verses 11, 13) We are further told in a later chapter of one for whom “arms shall stand on his part, and they shall pollute the sanctuary of strength, and shall take away the daily, and they shall place the abomination that maketh desolate.” (Dan 11:31) This is clearly the same event.

Zahakiel: Unfortunately, many Bible scholars and religious traditions have believed the individual of Daniel 11 to be Antiochus IV Ephiphanes, and the defilement of the Sanctuary as his actions against it during the inter-testamental period. Thus, they conclude, this matter is already resolved, and the Adventist view of the “cleansing of the Sanctuary” as a kind of investigative judgment is an error in interpretation.

There are many problems with the identification of the figure in Daniel 11 as Antiochus Ephiphanes, and that is just from a historical viewpoint. We will not go into the reasons why such a belief would not even stand up to the details revealed by secular history. But for us, what should matter most is the Biblical teaching. To Christ Himself, by whose authority Daniel received these very visions, the matter of “the abomination that maketh desolate” and the defilement of the sanctuary was a matter yet future in His day.

We read of His statement to His disciples, “But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing where it ought not, (let him that readeth understand) then let them that be in Judaea flee to the mountains.” (Mark 13:14) Note that this is after Antiochus Ephiphanes, and before the rise of papal Rome, which Adventists see as the fulfillment of the “little horn” in Daniel 8:9 that sets up the desolating abomination. Thus, Christ’s statement is fully consistent with the traditional SDA teaching of the sanctuary’s defilement and need for cleansing, but inconsistent with the teachings of many who would (on account of tradition) would seek to find errors in the Adventist viewpoint.

The Scriptures reveal that there is indeed a tabernacle in Heaven, containing elements that correspond to the earthly simulacrum. “But Christ, being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle […] entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.” (Heb 9:11, 12) “And after that I looked, and, behold, the temple of the tabernacle of the testimony in heaven was opened.” (Rev 15:5) The “testimony” here (in this sense used interchangeably with “Law” – Psa 19:7, Isa 8:16) refers to the 10 Commandments, demonstrating both the presence of the Heavenly Sanctuary (“Tabernacle” and “Sanctuary” are used interchangeably – Heb 8:2, Lev 16:33) and, incidentally, the eternal nature of the Decalogue, which includes the instructions regarding the Sabbath day.

Are there any questions or comments on this?

Rita: None.

The Ministry

Order and Pattern

Zahakiel: Regarding the ministry of Christ in this Heavenly Sanctuary, the Book of Hebrews applies the following verse to Yahshua: “Yahweh hath sworn, and will not repent, ‘Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.’” (Psa 110:4, cf., Heb 5:6) Some have, then, asked, “Since Christ is said to be after the order of Melchizedek, and not after Levi, why do Seventh-day Adventists apply the rituals of the Levitical priesthood to the ministry of Christ, speaking of the Holy Place, the Most Holy Place, etc?”

We must note, first of all, that the word in Hebrew for “order” is dibrah. The Greek word in the translation of Hebrews 5:6 is taxis, both of which mean “an arrangement,” or “a manner.” But the word for “pattern,” which is what concerns us far more when discussing types and antitypes, is tabnyth in Hebrew and tupos in Greek, from which we get the very word “type” in a theological context. This word has a very different connotation, speaking of a model or a plan to be followed, a path of steps or behavior to which conformity is expected.

Yahshua is a High Priest after the Order of Melchizedek, in that He and this figure share a number of characteristics in common. There is a similar “manner” or “arrangement” to the appointment of each. Hebrews spells out for us the reason for the similarity in arrangement. Melchizedek is described as “King of peace; without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; he abideth a priest continually.” (Heb 7:2b, 3)

We must not, on the basis of these verses, conclude (as some have) that Melchizedek is a supernatural figure. They say, “How can a regular human be described as having no father or mother?” But the truth is, Melchizedek is being described in this way in order to show his similarity to Christ, who had both mother (Mary) and fathers – one adopted and one Divine. Paul cannot, therefore, be saying of Salem’s king what he has, at times, been taken to mean. What the author is commenting on there is the iconic nature of Melchizedek. The inspired record is silent on the matter of his ancestors and his descendants, therefore, he is entirely defined by his role, and not his family associations, as would have been the custom for the Hebrew audience of this epistle.

Qinael: The wording of the verse bears that out as well... Where it says “without descent” it’s one word in Greek, agenealogetos; it means, literally, “without record in genealogies.”

Zahakiel: Right.

So, by presenting Melchizedek as a priest with no recorded past or future, the Scriptures hold him up as the embodiment of the eternal priesthood, one who lives solely to be described in terms of his ministry. In this Melchizedek is a type of Christ, who “ever liveth to make intercession for” His people. (Heb 7:25) Yahshua is a High Priest after the Order of Melchizedek, because He officiates in a manner consistent with what the Bible says about this figure.

On the other hand, the Book of Hebrews itself draws heavily upon the rites and rituals of the Levitical system to describe the actual actions undertaken by Yahshua during the course of this officiating. It is true that in Hebrews 7 it is said that the priesthood of Yahshua so far exceeds the Levitical priesthood in dignity that it renders the latter entirely obsolete, (i.e., “a disannulling of the commandment” – Heb 7:18) but the pattern or model of this priesthood nevertheless follows the particulars provided by Moses for the work of his brother Aaron. Hebrews speaks, for example, of Christ offering sacrifice, (Heb 9:14) going “through the veil,” (Heb 10:20) to the presence of the Father, purifying the things of Heaven with a “better sacrifice” than that which purified the things of earth that signified them, (Heb 9:23) and so on.

So then, what we have is a High Priest who officiates according to the Order of Melchizedek in that He has an eternal priesthood that is not dependent upon human genealogy, (Heb 7:14) and is completely identified by this role. But while this officiating takes place by one who is appointed according to the Order of Melchizedek, we find that the particulars of His ministry run parallel to the Pattern of Levi. Thus, we have two aspects of the ministry, the Order and the Pattern, and neither one is contrary to the meaning of the other. Are there any questions about this?

Rita: None.

Ye: No.

Crystle: None here.

Happy Rock: No.

Zahakiel: Now, one of the differences between ourselves and the mainstream Adventist church is, as we discussed last New Moon and at the Feast, the fact that they have begun to adopt a more “mainstream” view of the Atonement. Evangelical Christianity teaches that the atonement was completed at the cross, seeing the “Order” of Melchizedek, and the statements that the previous ministry is “that which decayeth and waxeth old, ready to vanish away” (Heb 8:13) as a way of saying that the Levitical pattern is obsolete.

This is not what the Book of Hebrews teaches. While holding up the merits of Christ’s priesthood far above anything ever offered by the human priests after the Order of Levi, it actually confirms that the pattern of both are identical. In other words, the activities that Yahshua fulfills in His role as a Melchizedekian High Priest correspond perfectly to the pattern of events laid out by Moses for the human priesthood. Melchizedek, while being a type (in nature) of Christ, has no rituals or symbolism associated with his ministry that can be applied to the Messiah’s work in the Heavenly sanctuary. The description of the work Yahshua is doing in the spiritual Tabernacle is drawn entirely from the Levitical code, even though the former work is of vastly greater import to humanity.

This work, of course, includes the “cleansing” of the Sanctuary described in Leviticus 16.

Closing and Prayer

Zahakiel: Since we’ve been going for almost an hour and a half, and since I am only a little over halfway through my notes on this topic, I think it will be necessary to break the study here. We have now examined all the aspects necessary to examine the “Cleansing of the Sanctuary” from the perspective of both the Levitical ritual, and the nature of the High Priest that performs the ceremonies.

We will continue next time and tie all these concepts together; but are there any questions about what we have covered this month?

Rita: None.

Ye: No.

Crystle: No.

Zahakiel: All right, then. Pastor, please close our meeting with a prayer :)

Pastor “Chick”: Dear Father in Heaven,

We have all been in Babylon and, having come out, we need the light to be clarified. Having come out of darkness, we need to perfect our understandings of Your truth. We are thankful for the message of clarification.

We appreciate your taking away the clouds that have obscured our vision. Keep these things fresh in our minds until we meet again, and we ask this and praise You in YAHshua’s holy name. Amen.

Zahakiel: Amen.

Qinael: Amen.

Rita: Amen.

Barb: Amen.

Ye: Amen.

Crystle: Amen.