Aren't we mixing symbols once again?

The plan of salvation is broad and deep.
You (James) seem to focus on the redemption from the more narrow avenue of the person, rather than the whole Great Controversy theme.

What did Jesus mean in John 6? He most certainly didn't mean actually eating His flesh and blood, though the Catholic priesthood pretends to turn their wafers and wine into the actual presence of Christ trying to make it literal.

John began his gospel with the words "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God..." Christ is the Word -- His scriptures are also His Word. In prayerful study we are to "eat" the Word. The incarnation of Christ, His divinity, His life on earth, His sacrifice, His work of atonement, His life in heaven as our sympathizing High Priest and advocate, the gift of the Holy Spirit,-- all these living, vital themes of Christianity are revealed from Genesis to Revelation. These are to be the staples of our diet -- our food and drink.


But let's not confuse that with the priest being required to eat of the sacrificial animal in the Old System. The symbolism doesn't match -- for it was the PRIEST Who was to eat it and BEAR THE SIN of the people.
Lev. 10:17-18 (Moses said to Aaron) Wherefore have ye not eaten the sin offering in the holy place, seeing it is most holy, and God has given it you to bear the iniquity of the congregation, to make atonement for them before the LORD? Behold, the blood of it was not brought in within the holy place: ye should indeed have eaten it in the holy place, as I commanded.

The priest eating the sacrifice shows that they (the priests) absorb the sacrifice. (In symbol prophesying that the sacrifice and the priest will be the same)
The fulfilment is the reality of the REAL HIGH PRIEST -- Jesus Christ, He is BOTH the sacrifice (the Lamb taking our sins and dying) AND the High Priest Who appears before the Father as a Lamb as it had been slain (Rev. 5:6) and Who presents His own blood before the ark in which reside the ten commandments.

Why do you invent your own interpretation of the law? The meaning of the priest eating of the sacrifice was given by Jesus. Isn't that enough? Anyway, again I ask, "Who are you?"

1. anointed priest,
2. the whole congregation,
3. a ruler, OR
4. a common member of the congregation?

And based on your answer, where was the blood of your sacrifice taken: inside of, or kept outside, the sanctuary? There is a reason why the blood for one was taken in; and the other was not. Look carefully at the categorization, and you will see why:

1. Sprinkled IN the sanctuary: anointed priest & whole congregation
2. Kept OUTSIDE the sanctuary: ruler & commoner

///

Who am I?
I am a person for whom Christ died that I may have eternal life.

Christ bore my sins, and with His blood pardon is written over those confessed sins, and He presents my name before the Father and His angels.


And no -- your putting two texts together is not enough-- since it is not addressing the same issue.

You make a big deal over the fact it wasn't practical for the priest to sprinkle every sacrificed animals blood in the sanctuary (can you imagine the mess), as if that meant the commoners sins were not taken into the sanctuary. Yet the priest represented the commoners, for the priest bore their transgression and that was brought into the temple. Also all the "commoners" were represented as well in a sacrifice for the whole congregation. The priest just had to take the blood for himself and for the whole congregation into the temple, since he represented them.

I asked you to identify yourself with one of those listed in Lev. 4. Is that SO hard?

• anointed priest
• the whole congregation
• a ruler
• one of the common people

Secondly, not only Jesus spoke of the eating of the sacrifice; Paul did as well.

"We have an altar, whereof they have no right to eat which serve the tabernacle. For the bodies of those beasts, whose blood is brought into the sanctuary by the high priest for sin, are burned without the camp. Wherefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered without the gate. Let us go forth therefore unto him without the camp, bearing his reproach." (Heb. 13:10-13)

What does he mean that we eat of the table but follow Jesus, who "that he might sanctify the people with his own blood (which was sprinkled in the sanctuary in type) suffered without the gate"? Look carefully at the categorization, and you'd see why the blood of one sacrifice was taken in but of the other, no.

///

James, as Dedication said, you are mixing things. Eating the flesh and drinking the blood of Christ has nothing to do with the symbolism of the sanctuary. First, it was the priest who ate the flesh of the sacrifice in order to bear the iniquity of the sinner. The key concept is bear the iniquity. Second, the priest did not drink the blood. So these symbolisms have nothing to do with each other.

As to Heb. 13:10-13. “We have an altar, whereof they have no right to eat which serve the tabernacle.”
There were two kinds of offerings which belonged to the priests: 1) meat offerings, sin offerings, and trespass offerings belonged exclusively to the priests, the males, and through them they bore the iniquity of the congregation (Number 18:9, 10; see also v. 1); these should be eaten in the sanctuary; 2) the raised offering of the Israelites’ gift, along with all their wave offerings; the first fruits; everything devoted; everything that opens the womb; these were not only for the priests, but for all members of the priestly family (Numbers 18:11-19); the eating was to be done in a clean place (Lev. 10:14) within the camp (Deut. 12:6, 7, 17, 18). These offerings were given to the priests because they should have no inheritance in their land; God was their inheritance (Numbers 18:20).

So, the meaning is that those who serve the earthly tabernacle have, in fact, no portion with God; no spiritual inheritance. Their portion is just the food they receive. Our portion, however, is spiritual, for Christ died without the camp, and His blood was brought into the sanctuary to sanctify us.

But, before you say again that the heavenly sanctuary is the church, I would like to ask you: If Paul is speaking to those who are already members of the church, what does he mean when he says,

“Heb 10:19 Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the holy places by the blood of Jesus,
Heb 10:20 by the new and living way that he opened for us through the curtain, that is, through his flesh