# The Continuity of the High Priestly Work



## smhbbag (Jul 3, 2005)

Paedo Premises and Conclusion on the Priesthood of Christ and New Covenant Membership:

P1: Christ is the High Priest of all New Covenant members
P2: Christ did not make atonement for the non-elect.
P3: There are at least some non-elect in the New Covenant.
C: Christ, as High Priest, did not make atonement for all New Covenant members.


To the paedo's: Do you hold to P1, P2 and P3? Will you affirm the conclusion I made from those premises? For now, I assume the answer is yes, as many Reformed paedo's in my life outside this board have affirmed this for me.

So.....a few observations:

We all recognize that the Old Covenant offered shadows, types, and copies of the great reality that was to come in the New Covenant. The Old Covenant High Priest made atonement sacrifice on behalf of every single Old Covenant member without exception. 

Leviticus 16:31-33


> The priest who is anointed and ordained to succeed his father as *high priest is to make atonement.* He is to put on the sacred linen garments 33 and make atonement for the Most Holy Place, for the Tent of Meeting and the altar, and *for the priests and all the people of the community*.



Yet, supposedly Christ, as High Priest of the New Covenant, does NOT make atonement for His NC people. He only makes atonement for the elect subset of the NC people. Some are left without blood offered on their behalf.

As Reformed people, we have a choice (lol, no pun intended, honestly). We can either have continuity on the role and work of the High Priest "“ or we can have continuity on the Covenant membership. Not both, for they exclude each other by definition. Hopefully this is pretty apparent.

If we have continuity on the work of the High Priest (namely that Christ, just as the OC priests, made atonement for all His NC people) "“ then we have a fully elect membership in the New Covenant - and a discontinuity relative to the mixed membership in the Old. But, if we have continuity on the membership (seeing non-elect in the NC just as the Old), then we have a discontinuity on the High Priesthood "“ because not all members of the NC are offered atonement by their High Priest (Christ), whereas in the OC every single member was given an atonement sacrifice by their High Priest.

More discontinuity for the paedo: The OC High Priests mediated for the GOOD of all their covenant people.....while Christ does not. He mediates cursings and judgment on some of His NC people, and has intended from the beginning to bring such judgment on his New Covenant non-elect. In scripture, it is a blessing to have a good High Priest represent you before God.....yet, in the paedo view, the non-elect NC member having a PERFECT High Priest is a source of greater eternal condemnation.

With all this considered, the OC High Priesthood doesn't seem to be a very good shadow, copy or type of Christ's Priesthood at all, for the paedo at least. For the paedo, the key function (sacrifice) and relation of the High Preist to the covenant people is radically different in the OC and NC.

Your thoughts?

[Edited on 7-3-2005 by smhbbag]


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jul 3, 2005)

You said:


> As Reformed people, we have a choice (lol, no pun intended, honestly). We can either have continuity on the role and work of the High Priest "“ or we can have continuity on the Covenant membership. Not both, for they exclude each other by definition. Hopefully this is pretty apparent.



Can you explain this further? ...

You quoted:


> The priest who is anointed and ordained to succeed his father as high priest is to make atonement. He is to put on the sacred linen garments 33 and make atonement for the Most Holy Place, for the Tent of Meeting and the altar, and for the priests and all the people of the community.



When you come to texts in the New Testament where it appears that Christ died for "all" and that God desires "all" to be saved, do you interpret them in the same way? If so, you have no business posting on this board. 

Context is key, my friend. Moses is pointing out the fact that not only are the sins of the priests atoned for (those making the atonement) but for the commoners among the congregation of Israel as well. It is a description of the extent of the atonement, not the individual application of it to every individual without exception.

There is no discontinuity here at all, it simply comes down to how you interpret Scripture - in context or out of context.



> For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. (1 Cor 15:22 ESV)



How do you interpret this verse? Do you interpret it with the same hermeneutic as you used in Leviticus? If not, then _you_ are not being consistent. 

Matthew Henry writes:


> _And observe what the extent of the atonement was which the high priest made: it was for the holy sanctuary, for the tabernacle, for the altar, for the priests, and for all the people_, v. 33. Christ's satisfaction is that which atones for the sins *both of ministers and people*




You also said:


> More discontinuity for the paedo: The OC High Priests mediated for the GOOD of all their covenant people.....while Christ does not. He mediates cursings and judgment on some of His NC people, and has intended from the beginning to bring such judgment on his New Covenant non-elect. In scripture, it is a blessing to have a good High Priest represent you before God.....yet, in the paedo view, the non-elect NC member having a PERFECT High Priest is a source of greater eternal condemnation.



It is not true that the priests _only_ mediated for the good of the people in the covenant, which you seem to be implying or explicitly stating here.



> Numbers 5:18 And the priest shall set the woman before the Lord and unbind the hair of the woman's head and place in her hands the grain offering of remembrance, which is the grain offering of jealousy. And in his hand the priest shall have *the water of bitterness that brings the curse*. 19 Then the priest shall make her take an oath, saying, "˜If no man has lain with you, and if you have not turned aside to uncleanness while you were under your husband's authority, be free from this water of bitterness that brings *the curse*. 20 But if you have gone astray, though you are under your husband's authority, and if you have defiled yourself, and some man other than your husband has lain with you, 21 then´ (let the priest make the woman take *the oath of the curse*, and say to the woman) "˜*the Lord make you a curse* and an oath among your people, when the Lord makes your thigh fall away and your body swell. 22 May this water that brings *the curse* pass into your bowels and make your womb swell and your thigh fall away.´ And the woman shall say, "˜Amen, Amen.´
> 
> 23 "œThen the priest shall write these *curses* in a book and wash them off into the water of bitterness. 24 And he shall make the woman drink the water of bitterness that brings *the curse*, and the water that brings *the curse* shall enter into her and cause bitter pain.


*

Here we see the Levitical priest mediating a curse for a covenant woman who has commited adultery before the Lord.*


----------



## Scott (Jul 7, 2005)

Remember, like a contract the, covenant has terms. In the covenant God promises atonement on the condition of faith. The covenant obligates covenant members to exercise saving faith. It is the exercise of saving faith that appropriates God's promise of atonement. It is very contractual. In legal terms, the exercise of faith is a condiction precedent to receiving the promise of atonement.


----------



## ChristianTrader (Jul 26, 2005)

Bump, 

Any Baptist have a response for this; for as it stands currently, it seems fair to say that the credobaptist position seems a bit dispensational.

CT


----------



## Robin (Jul 26, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott_
> Remember, like a contract the, covenant has terms. In the covenant God promises atonement on the condition of faith. The covenant obligates covenant members to exercise saving faith. It is the exercise of saving faith that appropriates God's promise of atonement. It is very contractual. In legal terms, the exercise of faith is a condiction precedent to receiving the promise of atonement.



Hi Scott...please indulge an important clarification, OK? I know what you're getting at - but it's good to make some important distinctions. .

Yes, "covenant" is a legal relationship between two parties. But the Biblical covenants are NOT like contracts....they are not issued by equal parties on equal ground.

God IMPOSES covenant upon people. Important. 

The key to understanding all covenant language in the Bible is to note WHO swears the oath.

Example: OT - covenant of grace: God swears the oath with language like: "I will be Your God and you will be my people" ; "I will, I give, I am, I, I" Etc. (Btw, this language is throughout the OT and is concluded in Rev. 21 - a theme to trace God's work of redemption.)

On the other hand, at Sinai, the people swore the oath: Exodus 24:3 When Moses went and told the people all the LORD's words and laws, they responded with one voice, "Everything the LORD has said we will do."

Btw, the Pharisees could be linked to this type of mentality in a sense- they actually thought they could keep God's law. Of course, Romans explains the whys and uses of the Law. Side-note: Moses is a mediator - not a Law-giver.

Back to covenant:

The type of covenant is determined by the language used - who is swearing the oath? This is the best way to understand - and is vital to avoid confusing covenants.

Also...I'd beg to disagree about the condition of the atonement. Actually, the requirement is the same that was required by the first Adam: PERFECT OBEDIENCE TO THE LAW! (Gasp) And Christ fulfilled this requirement absolutely perfectly (passive obedience) - which qualified Him to obtain our redemption. Christ is the Mediator (better than Moses.) Why? He kept the Law perfectly, for us.

Faith is NOT a work. Faith is an instrument that connects us (via the Holy Spirit) to Christ. God gives (or not) faith via the Spirit. Faith has no meaning whatsoever without its- OBJECT - which is Christ.

We are saved *by* (the ground) Christ's merits/works -*through* faith (the means) - and that faith is a gift (grace.)

As to the original post, everybody, please read through Hebrews (all the way; beginning to end, w/o stopping.) Christ's High Priest office explained there. (No offense, Gabe...who needs Matthew Henry?) The Scriptures are sufficient!!



Robin

[Edited on 7-26-2005 by Robin]


----------



## Monergism (Sep 20, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> Context is key, my friend. Moses is pointing out the fact that not only are the sins of the priests atoned for (those making the atonement) but for the commoners among the congregation of Israel as well. It is a description of the extent of the atonement, not the individual application of it to every individual without exception.



Lev. 16 goes on in verse 34 to say, "Now you shall have this as a permanent statute, to make atonement for the sons of Israel for all their sins once every year." And just as the LORD had commanded Moses, so he did." 

Why would you limit the extent of the atonement to only _some_ among the people? There is nothing in this text that would warrant that conclusion. Certainly the preceding verses give us categories or groups who receive atonement, but verse 34 then goes on to mention "œall the people" once again. It reasserts that the priest is to make atonement for all the sins of the sons of Israel. This isn´t bringing in another category or group; it is highlighting the duty of the priest to make atonement for all the people, to intercede for and remove God´s wrath from His covenant people. Further, if we limit the "œall" in verse 33, should we limit the "œall" in verse 34 as well? Do you want your High Priest to only make atonement for "œsome" of your sins? Again, nothing in the text gives us any reason to take it as anything other than each and every sin; each and every "œson of Israel." 

Further, let´s say for argument´s sake that the OC high priest only makes atonement for some among the covenant community. When he goes to make atonement for the entire community, how did he know who to exclude?


----------



## Peters (Oct 22, 2005)

> How do you interpret this verse? Do you interpret it with the same hermeneutic as you used in Leviticus? If not, then you are not being consistent.



What happened to all that talk about context, brother? In the 1 Corinthians passage, Paul is talking about the resurrection of the faithful, thus "œall" has its qualification. The Leviticus "œall" is qualified by "œthe people of the community", which is Israel, the lot of them. 



> Here we see the Levitical priest mediating a curse for a covenant woman who has committed adultery before the Lord.



Do you think this curse was a damning one?



> Why would you limit the extent of the atonement to only some among the people? There is nothing in this text that would warrant that conclusion. Certainly the preceding verses give us categories or groups who receive atonement, but verse 34 then goes on to mention "œall the people" once again. It reasserts that the priest is to make atonement for all the sins of the sons of Israel. This isn´t bringing in another category or group; it is highlighting the duty of the priest to make atonement for all the people, to intercede for and remove God´s wrath from His covenant people. Further, if we limit the "œall" in verse 33, should we limit the "œall" in verse 34 as well? Do you want your High Priest to only make atonement for "œsome" of your sins? Again, nothing in the text gives us any reason to take it as anything other than each and every sin; each and every "œson of Israel."
> 
> Further, let´s say for argument´s sake that the OC high priest only makes atonement for some among the covenant community. When he goes to make atonement for the entire community, how did he know who to exclude?



Excellent points, Brett.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Oct 22, 2005)

I think a helpful point here is the fact that you can't have a church based on election. It would be empty. We don't know who are elect. We only have a good idea who is elect. Election is God's work not ours. But His covenant is administered in history through His Church, which contains both elect and non-elect. 

It's not election vs. continuity in covenant membership. Both election and an impure covenant membership have coexisted since the beginning. (i.e. Romans 9-11). There have always been Jacob's and Esau's in the historical administration of the covenant. The only time the Church will be completely pure from the non-elect is at the consumation when Christ finally seperates the wicked from the righteous.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Oct 23, 2005)

> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> I think a helpful point here is the fact that you can't have a church based on election. It would be empty. We don't know who are elect. We only have a good idea who is elect. Election is God's work not ours. But His covenant is administered in history through His Church, which contains both elect and non-elect.
> 
> It's not election vs. continuity in covenant membership. Both election and an impure covenant membership have coexisted since the beginning. (i.e. Romans 9-11). There have always been Jacob's and Esau's in the historical administration of the covenant. The only time the Church will be completely pure from the non-elect is at the consumation when Christ finally seperates the wicked from the righteous.


I agree. 

To my Baptist Friends let me repost what you're saying:

P1: Christ is the High Priest of all New Covenant members
P2: Christ did not make atonement for the non-elect.
P3: There are at least some non-elect in the New Covenant.
C: Christ, as High Priest, did not make atonement for all New Covenant members.

Assuming you agree with all four point above then let me make a few points:
1. You baptize people based on a credible profession into your congregation.
2. Some of those baptized by your Churches are not elect.
Conclusion: You escape from none of the implications of Christ's High Priestly work.

I also take issue with the idea that Christ only mediates members of the New Covenant when Hebrews makes clear that:


> Heb 10:4
> For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats could take away sins.
> 
> Heb 10:8-10
> ...


It is Christ's atonement and High Priestly work that has saved and will save every Saint from Adam until He returns. That's what it means that the former things were "types and shadows" after all.

[Edited on 10-23-2005 by SemperFideles]


----------

