Seventh Day Adventist Question

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

BR:
To prove that Christ was not establishing a parallel OR a rival priesthood system ON EARTH - after the cross, the writer of Hebrews makes this astounding statement
quote:
Heb 8:
4 Now if He were on earth, He would not be a priest at all, since there are those who offer the gifts according to the Law;

GE:
You exactly in contradicting yourself absolutely, overturn the truth of the case! (But you obviously is oblivious to the implication.
What you have said, was that, to prove that Christ was not AFTER the cross, establishing a parallel or a rival priesthood system ON EARTH - the writer of Hebrews makes this astounding statement, quote, Heb 8:4, Now if He were on earth, He would not be a priest at all, since there are those who offer the gifts according to the Law.
But of course you blindly negate the very truth that Christ was NOT AFTER the cross, but ON EARTH, in fact establishing the rival priesthood system of God’s own (‘heavenly’) High Priest, to the then existing earthly priesthood which had priests offering gifts on earth.

 

[BobRyan]

Bob said
To prove that Christ was not establishing a parallel OR a rival priesthood system ON EARTH - after the cross, the writer of Hebrews makes this astounding statement

quote:
Heb 8:
4 Now if He were on earth, He would not be a priest at all, since there are those who offer the gifts according to the Law;

Those who wish to IGNORE the fact that Paul is writing AFTER the cross and that HIS READERS are READING the book of Hebrews AFTER the cross and that this is the context for the ENTIRE book of Hebrews - and that Paul stated repeatedly that Christ IS NOW IN HEAVEN functioning as our HIGH PRIEST "THE ONE MEdiator between God and man" and that HIS ROLE is NOT applicable ON EARTH for ON EARTH He would not be a priest AT ALL much less a HIGH PRIEST --

Must ignore a truckload of TEXT to embrace pretext and pontification "instead".

Why go there GE?

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

BTW GE you have spun your entire objection to SDAs on the wild eyed notion that only SDAs believe Christ went to heaven and began His Role as our High Priest - IN HEAVEN after dying for our sins on the cross.

Have you ever spent any time SHOWING that only SDAs think Christ STARTED His role as our High Priest IN HEAVEN when He went up to sit at the right hand of God??

Do you think that such a wild-eyed notion would stand up to a little research?

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

I have before quoted you Calvin - you read it? No?

Here's another,

John Flavel (1628-1691), 'An Exposition of the Shorter Catechism (of the Westminster Assembly)',

Question 23, ... What offices doth Christ execute as our Redeemer?
Answer, Christ, as our Redeemer, doth execute the office of a prophet, OF A PRIEST, and of a king, both in His estate of humiliation and exaltation.

Question 28, Wherein consists Christ's exaltation?
Answer, Christ's exaltation consists in His rising again from the dead on the third day; in ascending up into heaven, in sitting at the right hand of God the Father, and in coming to judge the world at the last day.
Question, Why did Christ rise again?
Answer, To establish our faith, and to abolish our sins: 1Cor.15:17, "And if Christ be not risen, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins."
Question, What other end was there of Christ's resurrection?
Answer, To declare His Divine Power; Rom. 1:4, "declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the Spirit of Holiness, by the resurrection from the dead."
And to EVIDENCE THE FULNESS OF HIS SATISFACTION ...'

Second Part of the 28th Question of Christ's exaltation.
Question, What was the third degree of Christ's exaltation?
Answer, His sitting at God's right hand in heaven: Hb.1:3, "When He had by Himself purged our sin, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high."
Question, What doth God's right hand signify?
Answer, A state of honour and power. (Hb.1:13; Mt.26:64)
Question, What is implied in Christ's sitting there?
Answer, That His work on earth is finished: Hb.10:12, "But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sin, for ever sat down on the right hand of God."

Question 4 of the 25 th Question, asks,
"WHAT IS THE FIRST DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CHRIST AND OTHER PRIESTS?"
The Answer given,
"Other priests offered the blood of beasts; Christ His own blood; Hb.9:12, " by His own blood He entered once into the Holy Place HAVING OBTAINED ETERNAL REDEMPTION for us."

GE:
Allow me to lift up from this last Scripture, the true difference. "The life is in the blood"; hence Christ by His own LIFE, entered! Christ's LIFE, "was the sacrifice Christ offered to God" -Question 6. ONLY THE HIGH PRIEST OF GOD COULD.
"By the which WILL through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ, we are sanctified once for all." "When Thou shalt make His SOUL (life) an offering for sin", Is.53:10

Question 7, Whence is the efficacy of this sacrifice?
Answer, From the DIVINE PERSON to whom that soul and body was united.

GE:
This the above, was atonement made, reconciliation reached, and satisfaction presented, in and through, by, and for, and of, the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead - 'atonement', peace, rest, and eternal life, full and final. ONLY THE HIGH PRIEST OF GOD, COULD!

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Bob said
To prove that Christ was not establishing a parallel OR a rival priesthood system ON EARTH - after the cross, the writer of Hebrews makes this astounding statement

quote:
Heb 8:
4 Now if He were on earth, He would not be a priest at all, since there are those who offer the gifts according to the Law;

Those who wish to IGNORE the fact that Paul is writing AFTER the cross and that HIS READERS are READING the book of Hebrews AFTER the cross and that this is the context for the ENTIRE book of Hebrews - and that Paul stated repeatedly that Christ IS NOW IN HEAVEN functioning as our HIGH PRIEST "THE ONE MEdiator between God and man" and that HIS ROLE is NOT applicable ON EARTH for ON EARTH He would not be a priest AT ALL much less a HIGH PRIEST --

Must ignore a truckload of TEXT to embrace pretext and pontification "instead".

Why go there GE?

In Christ,

Bob </font>[/QUOTE]i HAVE BROUGHT YOU TRUCK-LOADS OF 'TEXTS' - BUT THEY HAVE ALL BEEN DIVERTED BY THE RECIPIENT TO THE TRASH HEAP.

You every single time REVERT to YOUR, MIS,interpretation of 8:4!

Maybe it has become time to expose another of your major errors, namely, to confuse Christ's work of Mediator with His work of atonement.
I have never denied or deminished the meaning of Christ's intercession on behalf of believers and the necessity that He should be High Priest to be entitled to do that great priestly work - that simply hasn't been the topic so far.

But you already face an impassable obstacle here, for since when has Jesus' Mediatorial priesthood require a change? I refer to the SDA-dogma He started as an 'ordinary' Priest in the 'Holy Place', but since 1844 He has been promoted to High Priest to be qualified to enter in into the 'Most Holy"?

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Rather leave the subject of Jesus' Mediatorial work now, until the question has been settled whether He had been High Priest on earth or not!

BR:
Heb 7 deals with the law of genealogy of the priest showing that Christ had no EARTHLY claim to priesthood in the system GOD defined.

GE:
Sure! For this reason, “that Christ had no EARTHLY claim to priesthood”, He IS MADE High Priest “in the system GOD defined”; He is made that “(High) Priest of the Most High God”, “according to the Law of an endless life” (7:1,16), SO THAT, He should be – and in fact had been – High Priest WHERE He, otherwise, “had no EARTHLY claim to priesthood”. Where, and when, was that? You have said it, WHERE, and WHEN, “Christ had no EARTHLY claim”! Thus the Most High God made Christ High Priest according to the Law of an endless life, upon the earth!

Now if Christ was made High Priest according to the Law of an ENDLESS LIFE, He must have been the Son of the Most High God “who ONLY hath immortality” (1Tm.6:16). “HAVING neither beginning of days, nor end of life, but MADE like unto the Son of God who ABIDETH a (High) Priest ( of the Most High God) continually.” (2:3) “But we see Jesus who was made ... lower FOR TO SUFFER DEATH, CROWNED WITH GLORY AND HONOUR” – that “becomes” (2:9-10) the High Priest of the Most High God. (I don’t doubt my referring to diverse Scriptures together here will be acceptable.)

“Wherefore in all things” – in “humiliation” (Flavell) as well as in exaltation ‘ON EARTH’ – it behoved Him to be made (‘ON EARTH’) like unto His brethren, THAT HE MIGHT” – ‘ON EARTH’ – “be a mercifull and faithful HIGH PRIEST in things pertaining to God, TO MAKE RECONCILIATION / ATONEMENT / PEACE / FORGIVENESS / SATISFACTION for the sins of the People.” (2:17)

A Christ who ON EARTH AND WHILE ON EARTH had NOT been High Priest of the Most High God “would not have been priest at all”. That, Bob Ryan and all SDA’s, is what Hebrews 8:4 says – that, and nothing short of that: ‘High Priest of the Most High God’.
Jesus Christ HAD been declared, when, on earth, this God “brought Him again from death” and “raised Him” from earth’s tomb – this God declaring / pronouncing / sealing / taking oath by Himself, “TODAY, HAVE I BEGOTTEN THEE!”, Today, Have I made Thee High Priest for evermore, God declaring when He raised Christ from the dead.

This Jesus in His humiliation exalted High Priest of the Most High God perfected and entering in into His own rest as God, had made final and full atonement. Sing praises to His Name! It is finished! “And without controversy GREAT is the Mystery of Godliness: God manifested in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels (Mark the absence of the mortals!), preached unto unbelievers, BELIEVED ON IN THE WORLD, RECEIVED UP INTO GLORY.”

 

[BobRyan]

If you can show Christ as High Priest ON EARTH in Heb - 7 then do so -- pontificating about how you wish you had read it in the text does not help your argument.

Pretending like SDAs are the only ones to discover that Hebrews 7-10 (and 4-5) show Christ IN HEAVEN as our High Priest yet "NOT A PRIEST AT ALL while on earth" because as Heb 7 says the EARTHLY priesthood was a mere shadow prediction of the future heavenly reality in Christ -- does not help you. That is NOT a unique SDA teaching.

Why not wake up to these obvious facts GE?

You read in scripture about Christ's resurrection "TODAY, HAVE I BEGOTTEN THEE!”,

AND THEN you proudly tell us all that you WISH you had read "Today, Have I made Thee High Priest for evermore, God declaring when He raised Christ from the dead.

Don't get me wrong. I know how "nice" that would have been for the stories you are spinning IF YOU HAD READ SUCH A THING in the text -- but since you didn't -- how is just "making stuff up" helping you?

I just don't get the kind of "methodolgy" you think you are using to prove a point when obviously the text is not saying what your OWN QUOTE of your own SELF is showing that you needed it to say!

I think I am being pretty objective on this one. If there is ANYONE here (non-SDA, non-GE) that reads GE's post above as an objective, Bible based "proof" for the idea GE wishes he had found IN the text -- then please explain the methodology he is using to me.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

GE: 30 October 2005
The Divine act through Jesus Christ when He “offers” sacrifice for sin on earth is His duty of High Priest of God on earth, performed, offered or presented, and recompensed.
The Scriptures consider and regard Jesus’ office in crowning act on earth as High Priest, as one and whole and universal. So have the saints in the history of Christian doctrine.
Jesus’ dying and death in the New Testament is always understood for being the dying and death of Him The Living Risen Lord. His resurrection from the dead is never less than presupposed a priori, fundamental and pre-conditional for and of His being the crucified, and for that very reason is more often not mentioned than mentioned. His life always underlies His death; His death is never supposed loosed from His resurrection. The two are inseparable aspects of the one deed of God’s love and power to bring about life and peace and reconciliation. To say “the cross” is to say “the Risen”; to say “the blood of Jesus”, is to say “the life of Christ”.

And so it is with the use of the word “offered”. When Jesus’ “blood” is “offered”, it is at the same time meant the shedding of his blood through the sacrifice of Him, and, the presenting of it, it representing His Life, before the mercy-seat of the Majesty in heaven. “On the altar” and “before the mercy-seat” are become synonymous and simultaneous, undividable and indistinguishable. In fact, “in Him all the promises of God are yea, and in Him, Amen!” (2Cor.1:20) They are become synonymous, simultaneous, undividable and indistinguishable, by virtue of Life! The separate acts of the High Priest of the Most High God are the one act of His in obeying the Law of an endless Life. It is the same act of His in obeying the Law of an Atonement made once for all.
But the life of the Lamb of God is ever the first and foremost – “Lo, a Lamb as being slaughtered, STOOD!” He died because He is life – not because He is mortal! He died because He is “the Righteous One of God” – not because or as if He were a sinner! So when Christ surrendered the spirit ‘on the cross’, He being High Priest of Life of the Most High God of Life, could announce Life from the dead, and with a great voice declare, “Finished!” That was “all the works of God “finished” in the resurrection of Him from the dead (“it being in Sabbath’s-time’s fullness the First Day from Rest Accomplished, towards” – opse de sabbatohn tehi epiphohskousehi eis mian sabbatohn).
Let him who can take it, take it.

Thus are the excellencies of Christ “offered”, on the altar of the tree on earth as before the Throne of God in the heavens. In truth, thus, the Cross becomes the Throne of God in the Highest; His descending becomes His ascending; His humiliation His exaltation; His death, Life! “That in the dispensation of the fullness of times He might gather together IN ONE, ALL THINGS IN CHRIST, BOTH WHICH ARE IN HEAVEN, AND WHICH ARE ON EARTH, EVEN IN HIM!” (Eph.1:10)

In ther history of the Cristian doctrine of reconciliation the distinction between the two aspects of the one work of atonement of God through Christ, won't be found that sharp. I have drawn the distinction in direct response to the SDA-confusion of things.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Dear Bob Ryan,
You haven't even attempted to answer the most simple of my questions to you, like, since when did Christ's Mediatorial Priestly Office 'in heaven', require a change of Law or priesthood?

The fact there had been a change in both Law and priesthood, implies that changed occurred on earth, so that Christ could become High Priest of the Most High God on earth in the place of the priests who ther offers gifts! It is as simple as that.
But I have sympathy - deep and sincere sympathy - with the fact how you all your life (it seems) have been indoctrinated to think. When I had to begin changing my own ideas, I for years went along thinking I have become insane - honestly!
Now you may regard me as really insane. I shall understand, and won't blame you at all - I have been in the same boat too much. Luckily - or rather, mercifully - I started very early in life to be shaken in and by my own views.
That brings me to something you challenge me on. But I am unable to answer, due to a lack of precedent; so I'll return the challenge, and ask you, to present one (or more) instances of other 'faiths' holding to the view Jesus had not been High Priest (or not just 'ordinary' Priest of God) "while on earth".
Man, have you never heard of the great Protestant protestations against Roman Catholicism that Christ - Jesus while in life on earth - officiated Prophet, Priest and King? Wake up!

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Consider:
BR, “...Hebrews 7-10 (and 4-5) show Christ IN HEAVEN as our High Priest yet "NOT A PRIEST AT ALL while on earth" because as Heb 7 says the EARTHLY priesthood was a mere shadow prediction of the future heavenly reality in Christ ...”

First, “while on earth” means “if he remained on earth”, as we have been discussing – you being unable to cope with the truth of the fact thus far. If you could have seen the light here, you would not have fallen into your much coarser blunder,
“... as Heb 7 says the EARTHLY priesthood was a mere shadow prediction of the future heavenly reality in Christ ...” – you of course presupposing “future heavenly reality” to mean ‘future heavenly reality IN HEAVEN’.
Which is totally unnecessary and illegitimate, because, as Heb 7 says, the EARTHLY priesthood was a mere shadow prediction of the future heavenly reality in Christ ... ON EARTH!

Stop at this stop-sign, and consider your misinterpretation and malapplication of Hb.8:4a thoroughly, before proceeding over the line one step against the Law!

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

BR:
You read in scripture about Christ's resurrection "TODAY, HAVE I BEGOTTEN THEE!",
AND THEN you proudly tell us all that you WISH you had read "Today, Have I made Thee High Priest for evermore, God declaring when He raised Christ from the dead.
Don't get me wrong. I know how "nice" that would have been for the stories you are spinning IF YOU HAD READ SUCH A THING in the text -- but since you didn't -- how is just "making stuff up" helping you?
I just don't get the kind of "methodolgy" you think you are using to prove a point when obviously the text is not saying what your OWN QUOTE of your own SELF is showing that you needed it to say!

All right fine; I made the typing error not to type ‘”’ after “... evermore”, and before my own words, ‘... God declaring... .
The second time you are so keenly observant. But how obstinately negligent can you be when it comes to matters of matter. Don’t get me wrong – I know how ugly it is to say. So I’ll rub it in more. You were so observant to immediately notice I made the text saying what I of my own self was saying, by having forgotten or perhaps missed striking the key for ‘”’; yet I just don’t get you never noticed I also omitted ‘”’ at the end of my own self saying as were it the text was saying? Don’t tell me!
Strain at a gnat! Rubbish! Return an answer, please!
(Typical SDA-“methodlogy” thorough and precise!)

But back to what matters.
“...how "nice" ... IF YOU HAD READ SUCH A THING in the text ...” “about Christ's resurrection”, as, "TODAY, HAVE I BEGOTTEN THEE!".
You tell me what “such a thing” is if not “about Christ's resurrection”!
When is this announcement about Christ made?
Before creation?
“In the beginning the Word WAS ...” He was not then or before, “begotten”.
At when born of the virgin Mary?
He was not then “begotten of the Father”, but of a woman.
Only alternative left?
“Who, IN THE DAYS OF HIS FLESH OFFERED UP PRAYERS ... AND WAS HEARED” – by “Him that was able to SAVE HIM FROM DEATH” – that is, by Him who had the power to raise Him from the dead and did raise Him from the dead.
SUCH A THING I have “READ in the text”. Could you have “READ in the text” something different or to the contrary? You shall have to ‘make stuff up’ that will help you deduce from this cardinal truth of the Gospel, that Christ was not while on earth, High Priest of the Most High God, but only became one, after 1844.

 

[BobRyan]

GE
You were so observant to immediately notice I made the text saying what I of my own self was saying, by having forgotten or perhaps missed striking the key for ‘”’; yet I just don’t get you never noticed I also omitted ‘”’ at the end of my own self saying as were it the text was saying? Don’t tell me!
Strain at a gnat!

You missed the point again.

The point was NOT that you were quoting you instead of the text and that in doing so you misplaced the QUOTE marks. (though you seem happy to point that gnat out).

The point was that the source "YOU" was much more direct and explicit in stating your doctrine -- but the TEXT ITSELF said nothing of the kind as needed by your doctrine. The point is that you seem to take off on wild flights of fancy without any support at all in scripture.

I was simply pointing out a classic case in your most recent post -- showing how the direction you want to "Strain out of the text" is not actually IN the text at all - so you simply "say" what you wish you had read. Never mind the quote marks GE - the point is the same.

I do not argue that Christ never prayed on earth as you seem to want to misdirect -- rather I argue that "While on earth He was not a Priest AT ALL" for even if TODAY HE were "On earth He would not be a Priest AT ALL" - why? Because ON EARTH there is only the "shadow" system of priests pointing to the REALITY that is in heaven itself!

As for your repeated (and failed) attempts to prove that ONLY SDAs think Christ is our High Priest in heaven -- you might as well try a little "evidence" with all of your failed charges to that effect.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by Gerhard Ebersoehn:
Dear Bob Ryan,
You haven't even attempted to answer the most simple of my questions to you, like, since when did Christ's Mediatorial Priestly Office 'in heaven', require a change of Law or priesthood?

The fact there had been a change in both Law and priesthood, implies that changed occurred on earth,

To the contrary - The TEXT SAYS "IF He were ON EARTH He would not be a PRIEST AT ALL" Heb 8:4.

The text points out that ON EARTH there IS NOTHING said AT ALL about anyone from the tribe being included in the PRIESTHOOD!

That REMAINS true to this very day.

That is because the SHADOW earthly system of TYPES(earthly priests and earthly sanctuary - gives way to the HEAVENLY ANTITYPES -- the TRUE tabernacle and the REAL High Priest who appears NOW FOR US IN HEAVEN according to the text itself).

This is so obvious - most non-SDAs "get it" as well.

Admitting to this obvious truth of Christ as our High Priest in heaven - is not now nor has it ever been a DISTINCTIVE for SDAs - most Christians confess the same obvious truth even today!

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Nevertheless, I’ll offer you my assistance and provide two examples of how the “SDA teaching” –“that Hebrews 7-10 (and 4-5) says ... the EARTHLY priesthood was a mere shadow prediction of the future heavenly reality in Christ”, and “show Christ IN HEAVEN as our High Priest yet "NOT A PRIEST AT ALL while on earth"”- is, ‘uniquely’-Seventh Day Adventist, not shared by any (other) ‘school of thought’ of Christian standing.
The first example is the claim by Seventh Day Adventism itself that ‘The Investigative Judgement’ is the one doctrine that separates SDA’s from other Churches and makes them unique – that “sets (them) apart” as “a peculiar People”! (As another and confirming witness to – and as actually the inspiring witness of - their witness as a Body or People, may be added the “Witnesses” (“early” and ‘late’) of their own prophetess.)

The second example,
John Owen, ‘The Person of Christ’, ‘The State of Christ in Heaven’, Chapter 19,

“That which I specially intend herein is His present state in heaven, in the discharge of His Mediatory Office (Capital Letters CGE), before the consummation of all things. Hereon doth the glory of God, and the especial concernment of the Church, at present depend. For, at the end of this dispensation, He shall give up the Kingdom to God, even the Father, or cease from the administration of His Mediatory Office and Power, as the Apostle declares, 1Cor.15:24-28, ...”.

Herein is the first difference between Christ’s High Priestly Office “in heaven” distinct and different from His High Priestly Office ‘on earth’: It is that His “Mediatorial Office in heaven”, “ceases” because it is temporary; while His High Priestly Office ‘on earth’ was “without beginning ... without end”. Christ’s High Priestly Office on earth was “for evermore” because it was “atonement made once for all”. It “opened the way” for His “Mediatorial Office in heaven”, and laid the foundation of it. All the benefits attained in atonement made and reconciliation ended and justification applied – “all the works of God”, “finished”, could now be ‘administrated’.

“All things fell by sin into an enmity unto the glory of God and the salvation of the Church. The REMOVAL of this enmity, and the DESTRUCTION of all enemies, is the work that God committed unto His Son in His Incarnation and Mediation, (Eph.1:10) This He was variously to accomplish in the administration of all His Offices. The ENMITY between God and us, He removed by the blood of His cross, whereby he made peace, Eph.2:14-16; which PEACE He continues and preserves by His intercession, Heb.7:25; 1John 2:1. The ENEMIES themselves of the Church’s eternal welfare- namely, sin, death, the world, Satan, and hell-He subdues by His power. In the GRADUAL ACCOMPLISHMENT OF THIS WORK (His intercession)- according as the Church of the Elect is brought forth in successive generations (in every one whereof the same work is to be performed) –He is to continue unto the end and consummation of all things. Until then the whole Church will not be saved, and therefore his work not be finished.”
And much more.

Condensed, John Owen (of ‘reformed faith’ absolutely) teaches, two legs of ATONEMENT/PEACE/SALVATION UNLIMITED unto the glory of God and of His Christ, namely,
One,
ATONEMENT/PEACE/SALVATION UNLIMITED ATTAINED through the incarnation and earthly ministry of Christ in His suffering, dying, death and burial, and,
Two,
same ATONEMENT/PEACE/SALVATION UNLIMITED ACCOMPLISHED in the very resurrection of Him from the dead-
“all” the “office” by “ordainment” of “High Priest of the Most High God”, and
BOTH, AT ONCE, “once for all”, and “perfected”.
This is Christ’s eternal Priestly Work for forgiveness of sins, done, and “believed”.

Then FOLLOWS, “gradually”, UPON THESE TWO LEGS OF FINAL AND FULL AND ETERNAL ATONEMENT MADE, and for as long only, as time and “generations” pass, Jesus’ “Mediatorial Office” as explained by Owen here, and elsewhere, clearly as of temporary effectiveness and obligation.

 

[BobRyan]

Well not to burst your bubble GE but pontificating that SDAs are the ONLY ONES that accept the truth that Christ went to heaven to start His work as High Priest can be "discredited" with lightening speed using actual objective "proof". (Though I do appreciate your own attempts to simply spin stories and misdirect from the obvious point).

John Gill accepts the SAME obvious truth as SDAs regarding the fact that Christ is NOT a priest on earth - the shadow system of the heavenly -- but rather IN HEAVEN

John Gill -- on Heb 8
John Gill's Exposition of the Bible

Chapter 8: Hebrews 8
The apostle observing that the priesthood of Christ is the sum of what he had treated of in the preceding chapter, proceeds to show the superior excellency of it in other instances, particularly in the place where Christ now officiates, which is in heaven; he being set down at the right hand of God there, and so was a minister of the sanctuary, and true tabernacle pitched by God, and not man; whereas the priests of Aaron's line only ministered on earth, and in the typical sanctuary and tabernacle, Hebrews 8:1 and after he had observed that Christ must have something to offer, meaning his body, to answer to the gifts and sacrifices priests were ordained to offer, Hebrews 8:3 he proves the necessity of his ministering in heaven, because if he was on earth he would not be a priest, a complete one, and would have been useless and needless, Hebrews 8:4 and besides, it was proper that he should go up to heaven, and minister there, as the antitype of the priests, who, to the example and shadow of heavenly things, served in the tabernacle which was made by Moses, by the order of God, and according to the pattern showed him in the Mount, Hebrews 8:5 and that the ministry of Christ in the true sanctuary is much more excellent than the ministry of the priests in the shadowy one, is evident from his being the Mediator of a better covenant


if Christ had remained on earth, the Levitical priesthood had remained, and so he would have been no priest, since two priesthoods could not have subsisted together. The Levitical priesthood was in force while Christ was on earth; Christ's priesthood was not perfected on earth; the Levitical priesthood remaining while he was on earth, proves he was not then a perfect priest, or had not completed his priesthood; had he been so, that would not have subsisted; it was necessary therefore that Christ should enter into the holy place, to put an end to the Levitical priesthood: moreover, if he had remained on earth, he had been needless;

seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law; there were priests when Christ was upon earth; their work was to offer gifts the people brought, and sacrifices for sin, and that according to the law of Moses, which till the death of Christ was in full force.

Verse 5. Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things,.... Things respecting the person, office, and grace of Christ; the priests themselves were types of him; the places they ministered in were an exemplar of the heavenly places, as the word may be rendered, where Christ is; and the things they ministered were shadows of the good things which are by Christ; and the shadows were mere representations; dark, obscure, glimmering ones, and were fleeting and transitory:

 

[BobRyan]

Darby's commentary -

HEb 7
For the law made high priests who had the infirmities of men, for they were men themselves; the oath of God, which came after the law, establishes the Son, when He is perfected for ever, consecrated in heaven unto God.

We see here that, although there was an analogy and the figures of heavenly things, there is more of contrast than of comparison in this epistle. The legal priests had the same infirmities as other men; Jesus has a glorified priesthood according to the power of an endless life.

The introduction of this new priesthood, exercised in heaven, implies a change in the sacrifices and in the covenant. This the inspired writer develops here setting forth the value of the sacrifice of Christ, and the long-promised new covenant. The direct connection is with the sacrifices; but he turns aside for a moment to the two covenants, a so wide-embracing and all-weighty consideration for the christian Jews who had been under the first.




Heb 8 -

The sum of the doctrine we have been considering is, that we have a High Priest who is seated on the throne of the Majesty in the heavens, a Minister of the heavenly sanctuary which is not made with hands. As such, He must have an offering to present there. Jesus, were He on earth, would not be a Priest; there were priests on earth according to the law, in which all things were but figures of the heavenly things; as Moses was told to make all according to the pattern that was shewn him in the mount. But the ministry of Jesus is more excellent, because He is the Mediator of a better covenant,

Heb 9
Our High Priest is in the sanctuary, not with the blood of sacrifices, which are but figures of the true. The work has been done which puts sin away. This redemption is neither temporal not transitory. It is the redemption of the soul, and for eternity, according to the moral efficacy of that which has been done.

...

First, Christ is a High Priest of good things to come. In saying "things to come",the starting-point is Israel under the law before the advent of our Lord. Nevertheless, if these good things were now acquired, if it could be said, "we have them," because Christianity was their fulfillment, it could hardly be still said-when Christianity was established--"good things to come." They are yet to come. These "good things" consist of all that the Messiah will enjoy when He reigns. This also is the reason that the earthly things have their place. But our present relationship with Him is only and altogether heavenly. He acts as Priest in a tabernacle which is not of this creation: it is heavenly, in the presence of God, not made with hands. Our place is in heaven.

...
Now the first tabernacle-Judaism as a system-is identified with the first part of the tabernacle, and that open only to the priestly part of the nation, the second part (that is, the sanctuary) only shewing, by the circumstances connected with it, that there was no access to God. When the author of the epistle goes on to the present position of Christ, he leaves the earthly tabernacle-it is heaven itself he then speaks of, a tabernacle not made with hands, nor of this creation, into which he introduces us.

...

Christ comes, accomplishes the sacrifice, makes the conscience perfect, goes into heaven itself; and we draw nigh to God in the light. To mingle the service of the first tabernacle or holy place with christian service is to deny the latter; for the meaning of the first was that the way to God was not yet open; the meaning of the second, that it is open.

God may have patience with the weakness of man. Till the destruction of Jerusalem He bore with the Jews; but the two systems can never really go on together, namely, a system which said that one cannot draw nigh to God, and another system which gives access to Him.

Christ is come, the High Priest of a new system, of "good things," which, under the old system, were yet " to come ;" but He did not enter into the earthly most holy place, leaving the holy place to subsist without a true meaning. He is come by the (not a) more excellent and more perfect tabernacle. I repeat it, for it is essential here: the holy place, or the first tent, is the figure of the relationship of men with God under the first tabernacle (taken as a whole); so that we may say, " the first tabernacle," applying it to the first part of the tabernacle, and pass on to the first tabernacle as a whole, and as a recognised period having the same meaning. This the epistle does here. To come out of this position, we must leave typical things and pass into heaven, the true sanctuary where Christ ever lives, and where no veil bars our entrance.

Now it is not said, that we have " the good things to come." Christ has gone into heaven itself, the High Priest of those good things, securing their possession to them that trust in Him. But we have access to [18] God in the light by virtue of Christ's presence there. That presence is the proof of righteousness fully established; the blood, an evidence that our sins are put away for ever; and our conscience is made perfect. Christ in heaven is the guarantee for the fulfillment of every promise. He has opened an access for us, even now, to God in the light, having cleansed our consciences once for all-for He dwells on high continuously-that we may enter in, and that we may serve God here below.

..
First, it was necessary that there should be a better sacrifice, a more excellent victim, than those which were offered under the old covenant, because it was the heavenly things themselves, and not their figures, that were to be purified. For it is into the presence of God in heaven itself that Christ has entered.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

I guess I could go on and on with quotes totally debunking your view that SDAS are the only ones to admit to the Bible truth that Christ has gone to heaven AFTER his crucifixion to be our High Priest and that the EARTHLY system of priests ended as His HEAVENLY priesthood began...

But I wait to see the "Stories" you would spin in response first.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

GE in your last post you only gave ONE proof - and that was from John Owen where you show someone agrees with YOU about the priesthood of Christ ON EARTH and NOT in heaven.

But the charge for you to PROVE was that SDAs are the only ones saying that Christ went to heaven to begin His work as our High Priest IN THE TRUE tabernacle - the HEAVENLY one - the one God pitched and not man.

AS I have shown - in my quotes above - your SDA-only theme on that point is debunked.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

BR:
“I do not argue that Christ never prayed on earth as you seem to want to misdirect …”

GE:
You know as well as I do, that now, you, are “spinning”! You not only “seem”, “to misdirect” – you much too obviously, “misdirect”. Your misdirection in this case is to show here’s another gnat of GE’s strutting BR’s solid case. Be that as you like!

BR:
“ -- rather I argue that "While on earth He was not a Priest AT ALL" for even if TODAY HE were "On earth He would not be a Priest AT ALL" - why? Because ON EARTH there is only the "shadow" system of priests pointing to the REALITY that is in heaven itself!

GE:
This time, the tables are turned, and I, insist to strain on the very same gnat of last time, I refuse to “Never mind the quote marks”, ‘the point is the same’, for the umpteenth time!
NOW, you are the one, who proudly tells us all what you WISHED TO read, namely, quoting you, "While on earth He was not a Priest AT ALL". Mind the quote marks that indicate that you are quoting Hebrews 8:4a!

Kindly, where did you find these words between the quote marks in the lines of the text? Because it is not in the lines of Hebrews 8:4a, I can assure you!
It is your deserted pet, and the pet, the wise man tells us, “knows the heart of its master”. So here are your intentions exposed – you wish the fact dead that the text says, “WERE, He on earth, He WOULD not be a Priest at all”.
I, thoroughly, ‘get the kind of "methodology" you think you are using to prove a point when obviously the text is not saying what your OWN QUOTE of your own SELF is showing that you needed it to say’! In the ‘back bush’ language of a man like me, let me tell you to the face, Bob Ryan, you are a liar! And if this is how your church goes about defending its doctrine of "While on earth He was not a Priest AT ALL", then it, like you, is a liar!

This here now is the THIRD time I invited your attention to the fact the writer uses the Subjunctive. Is it going to be the third time you are just going to smear it off?


BR:
”... even if TODAY HE were "On earth He would not be a Priest AT ALL" – why? Because ON EARTH there is only the "shadow" system of priests pointing to the REALITY that is in heaven itself!”

GE:
Quoting BR:, “... even if TODAY HE were "On earth He would not be a Priest AT ALL" ...”.
By itself, this statement of yours says nothing ‘at all’ – He is not, today, on earth.

BR:
“... even if TODAY HE were "On earth He would not be a Priest AT ALL" - why? Because ON EARTH there is only the "shadow" system of priests pointing to the REALITY that is in heaven itself!”

GE:
No!
Unfortunately for you, here is the actual text:
Even today,
“IF, he WERE, on earth, He would not be a Priest AT ALL ..." – Subjunctive supposition!
“WHY?”
“Because / seeing / since ...”
(says the text with the single word “it being” (ontohn) – not a word of “ON EARTH”!)
Why therefore? and the reason given, is,
“... because of the offering according to Law, (of) the gifts that serve a figuration and type of the heavenly (Gift: Jesus Christ).”

For the second time I inform you there is no such thought or words ‘in the text’ as say or indicate “in heaven” or, “in heaven itself”! (“Don't get me wrong. I know how "nice" that would have been for the stories you are spinning IF YOU HAD READ SUCH A THING in the text -- but since you didn't -- how is just "making stuff up" helping you?”)

‘There is only the "shadow" system of priests pointing to the REALITY that is ...’ Jesus Christ Himself! How near you got, but swerved away from truth!

Now Jesus Christ came, to on earth, take in the place of the “gifts offered shadowing forth” HIM ‘The Heavenly Thing’ – “gifts offered foreshadowing” HIM, by priests that used to offer them on earth.
Therefore, “HAD He REMAINED on earth (and WERE on earth still), He WOULD not have been a priest at all”, but would have been a false Christ who did not fulfil His Office of High Priest of the Most High God while He was on earth.

Since then this is a Subjunctive supposition it proves the opposite reality, That while He had been on earth, He in truth had been High Priest of the Most High God who in every respect obeyed and fulfilled the Law that foreshadowed and typified HIM, and in every respect has taken in the place of the gifts before offered by priests on earth that promised This Heavenly Thing … to the earth and its inhabitants.

 

[BobRyan]

GE said
Unfortunately for you, here is the actual text:
Even today,
“IF, he WERE, on earth, He would not be a Priest AT ALL ..."

Precisely!