Does Blood Defile, Does Blood Cleanse, or Does Blood Do Both?

Does blood defile, or does blood cleanse, or does it both defile and cleanse?

What does the Bible say, if anything, about this?

No time for verses now (preparing for a sermon tomorrow) but it does both, depending on the context.

Arnold,

When you have the time, I will be looking for Bible texts to back up what you posted here.

It seems to me that blood only cleanses. Heb. 9:22. What defiles is sin.

I think that it would depend on who's blood.

The blood of the Lamb cleanses.

It would appear that other blood would defile. See text:

Leviticus 15 , Numbers 35:32-34, Isaiah 59:3

Blood represents life, so that would agree with crater's idea that it depends on who's blood.

We discussed this at Prayer Meeting last Wednesday evening.

The feeling there was that the blood both cleanses and defiles.



Hebrews 9:22 says that the blood cleanses, purges, purifies. It is, therefore, obvious that the blood does this.

Does the Bible say anywhere that the blood also defiles? I ask this before looking at the Bible references crater provided in relation to the "other" blood, however, I don't think I am asking about "other" blood here.

The blood itself does not literally purify, but the symbolism conveys spiritual truth.

If you look in the O.T., you can find incidents where purification was necessary in coming in contact with certain things (which could include blood), but these were having to do with health issues. There were other rules related to blood, having to do with health issues, as well (e.g. it was forbidden to eat or drink blood).

If one thinks about the spiritual meaning of the blood in connection with the sanctuary services, I can't think of anywhere where there is the implication that blood defiles.

What does Leviticus 16:16 say? To answer this I am quoted both verses 15 and 16 below:

Verse 15 tells us what happened to the blood of the sacrifice.
Verse 16 tells us what this blood did.

Somebody said the following in another forum outside of MSDAOL:

Do you agree with what this person said about the blood being a defiling agent to the sanctuary?

The sanctuary needs to be cleansed because of the transgressions of the people of Israel. Isn't that the point? Does it need to be cleansed because of blood? I'm not understanding why that would be the case. It seems to me rather to be the case that the blood is what cleanses.

In plain words, Jesus Christ cleanses us from our sins. That seems to be the spiritual message. If the blood represents the life of Christ, how could it defile? Or are you suggesting that blood represents our transgressions?

The person I quoted went on to say the following:

Did what he said here in the above quote make any sense?

I agree with Tom. The blood is symbolic. It is neither clean nor dirty. It symbolizes the fact Jesus made atonement for us. There is nothing dirty about His sacrifice and atonement. At the end of time, the sins of the saved will be placed on Satan who will perish with them in the lake of fire. Sin is not a physical substance.

I think there is definitely symbolism involving the idea that our transgressions make the sanctuary dirty. There is also symbolism that we are cleansed by the blood of Jesus. However, I'm not getting where the blood symbolizes our transgressions.

How do our sins get into the sanctuary? They get there by confession. That is, when we confess our sins, and ask for forgiveness, that's where the atonement comes in. They are transferred in type by the priest, as Jesus, in antitype, bears our sin. I'm not seeing where the blood fits into this transfer.

Why then is the blood of the sacrificed animal sprinkled in the sanctuary?

What does the sprinkling of this blood represent? What does it mean?

Doesn't the sprinkled blood represent "the benefits of His mediation in their behalf"?

"As anciently the sins of the people were by faith placed upon the sin offering and through its blood transferred, in figure, to the earthly sanctuary, so in the new covenant the sins of the repentant are by faith placed upon Christ and transferred, in fact, to the heavenly sanctuary." {GC 421.3}

That's why I said that, in my opinion, it's not the blood which defiles, but sin. The blood (of Christ's sacrifice) is the means (the provision) through which our sins can be removed from us and transferred to the sanctuary. Instead of continuing to condemn and defile us, they are transferred to the sanctuary; thus we may be considered innocent (pronounced just) and the registry of our sins remains there, to be blotted out in the judgment.

It is the death of the Lamb that atones for our sins. The blood is the medium by which our sins are transferred to the most holy place. In this sense the blood of Jesus is literal. The sins of the saved and unsaved remain quarantined, as it were, in the body and blood of Jesus in the most holy place until they are placed upon Satan or the unsaved in the lake of fire.

First, I'd like to welcome some of our "lost sheep" back into the fold. Good to see you guys.



Before getting into it, I want to make clear that I am talking about blood in a symbolic sense. I don't think the literal blood has any significance.

I see the blood as simply the medium through which sin is transferred. As the sinner confesses his sin, it transfers to the blood, then to the priest, then to the sanctuary. So, the blood cleanses the sinner of his sin, while the same blood defiles the sanctuary with the sin that it carries.

On the Day of Atonement, the blood removes the sin from the sanctuary and transfers it to Azazel. Again, it cleanses and defiles.

Essentially, it is the sin that defiles. The presence of sin shows defilement, while its absence shows purity. But the blood is the vessel that moves it around.

Let's make this a bit more personal. Does the blood of Christ cleanse us? Inherently, it does not. It can only cleanse when we allow Him to take our iniquities away. But it is His spilled blood that gives Him the right to do that.

That's interesting. Are you saying that the sins of the unsaved have also been transferred to the MHP?

Amen!


Yes. Jesus earned the right to own the sins of the world - not just the sins of the saved. He brought the sins of the world with Him in His body and blood into the most holy place. That's why He will be able to place them back upon the unsaved in the lake of fire, and why He will be able to place the sins of the saved upon Satan.

But, again, blood neither cleanses nor defiles. Blood is simply the medium by which sins are transferred to the most holy place. Neither does the presence of sins in the most holy place defile the most holy place. It is the death of Jesus, not the blood of Jesus, that gives God the legal right to own our sin and second death. It also gives Him the legal right to pardon our sins and to save us eternally in the New Earth.

I'm not sure what you mean by "literal" here. If you mean "literal" in the sense of "literal blood," as in "actual blood," then, of course, the blood of Jesus here is not literal, since there is no actual blood, of any sort, in the heavenly sanctuary.

All blood referred to is symbolic in meaning. Everything regarding to the sanctuary is symbolic in meaning. This isn't to say that there aren't real things involved. There are real sins, which need to be forgiven, and atoned for. There is a real sanctuary, a real throne of God, where God really resides, and so forth. But the things which were written were written to teach us spiritual lessons, to illustrate spiritual truth.

Sin resides in our minds. The problem of sin is there. The plan of salvation is a means to cleans US from sin. We are the ones who need it!

As we ask questions regarding what certain texts mean, what we are really seeking to do is to understand the spiritual truth involved, so that we, by believing the gospel, can be cleansed of our sin (also a phrase, conveying spiritual truth, which needs to be understood, but this post is long enough).

I see the blood as simply the medium through which sin is transferred.



As the sinner confesses his sin, it transfers to the blood, then to the priest, then to the sanctuary.

What does this mean? Sin is an act, which takes place in time and space. It's not a physical substance, which can be transported by blood to a sanctuary, or anywhere else.

So, the blood cleanses the sinner of his sin, while the same blood defiles the sanctuary with the sin that it carries.

As you pointed out, the blood is a symbol. What is it symbolic of?

On the Day of Atonement, the blood removes the sin from the sanctuary and transfers it to Azazel. Again, it cleanses and defiles.

Which means?

Essentially, it is the sin that defiles. The presence of sin shows defilement, while its absence shows purity.

This makes sense. Here the symbology is being translated into something meaningful. Where the absence of sin really shows purity is in the sinner, is it not? And the same thing can be said in regards to defilement.

But the blood is the vessel that moves it around.

Meaning?

Let's make this a bit more personal. Does the blood of Christ cleanse us? Inherently, it does not. It can only cleanse when we allow Him to take our iniquities away.

[color:blue]By "inherently" I take it you mean literally? That is, the literal blood of Jesus does not cleanse us. Surely all can agree to that. We do not bathe in literal blood.

Ok, so what does it mean to say that we are cleansed when we allow Christ to take our iniquities away. Where does Christ take our iniquities from when He takes it away? We say from "us," which is surely correct, but more precisely, isn't it clear that it is from our minds that the sin is removed? That is, our thought patterns are changed so that we choose not to commit the given sin anymore.

Where does blood fit in? The blood represents the life of Jesus Christ. When we perceive the height and lenght and breadth and height of God's love, given for us in Christ, that vision of God's love and character motivates us to give ourselves to Him. We choose Christ over sin. The blood cleanses us from sin by changing our lives.[/quote]

But it is His spilled blood that gives Him the right to do that.

[color:blue]How so? Does not God have the right to pardon whom He chooses. Why would God need to spill His own blood to forgive someone?

When Lucifer sinned, we read in "The Great Controversy" that God offered again and again to pardon him, without their being any blood spilt.

Doesn't common sense tell us that the Creator has the right to pardon whom He will?



I think Fifield got it right.

MM: It is the death of the Lamb that atones for our sins. The blood is the medium by which our sins are transferred to the most holy place. In this sense the blood of Jesus is literal.

TE: I'm not sure what you mean by "literal" here. If you mean "literal" in the sense of "literal blood," as in "actual blood," then, of course, the blood of Jesus here is not literal, since there is no actual blood, of any sort, in the heavenly sanctuary.

MM: The blood in Jesus' body is real, too, right? Jesus became sin for us. He bears our sins in His body and blood in the most holy place. "Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree." (1 Peter 2:24) This is literal, isn't it? Jesus did not cease bearing our sins in His body and blood when He rose from the grave and returned to heaven. That's how He transferred them from us to the heavenly sanctuary.

TE: Sin resides in our minds. The problem of sin is there. The plan of salvation is a means to cleans US from sin. We are the ones who need it!

MM: Our sins also reside within Jesus. Our sins are also recorded in the books in heaven. In this way, by these means, our sins have a physical existence and location outside of us. Jesus will blot the memory and record of specific sins from our minds and books. He will physically place them on Satan in the lake of fire. They will literally cease to exist when he dies.

TE: As we ask questions regarding what certain texts mean, what we are really seeking to do is to understand the spiritual truth involved, so that we, by believing the gospel, can be cleansed of our sin (also a phrase, conveying spiritual truth, which needs to be understood, but this post is long enough).

MM: Yes, of course, there are spiritual aspects of the truth. There are also literal, physical aspects. Just exactly how Jesus became sin for us is a mystery. Just exactly how He bears our sins and second death in His body and blood is also a mystery. But that's precisely what He is doing for us right now in the most holy place. It is all very literal and very awesome.

Again, to address the title of this thread:

Jesus' blood is not defiled by the sins it bears, nor does His blood cleanse the sins it bears. His blood is merely the means by which He bears our sins in His body in the most holy place until the day He places them on Satan in the lake of fire where our sins will cease to exist.

The Great Controversy, page 421 (a single paragraph that has been separated and numbered)

1. As anciently the sins of the people were by faith placed upon the sin offering and through its blood transferred, in figure, to the earthly sanctuary, so in the new covenant the sins of the repentant are by faith placed upon Christ and transferred, in fact, to the heavenly sanctuary.

2. And as the typical cleansing of the earthly was accomplished by the removal of the sins by which it had been polluted, so the actual cleansing of the heavenly is to be accomplished by the removal, or blotting out, of the sins which are there recorded.

3. But before this can be accomplished, there must be an examination of the books of record to determine who, through repentance of sin and faith in Christ, are entitled to the benefits of His atonement.

4. The cleansing of the sanctuary therefore involves a work of investigation--a work of judgment. This work must be performed prior to the coming of Christ to redeem His people; for when He comes, His reward is with Him to give to every man according to his works. Revelation 22:12.

MM: It is the death of the Lamb that atones for our sins. The blood is the medium by which our sins are transferred to the most holy place. In this sense the blood of Jesus is literal.

TE: I'm not sure what you mean by "literal" here. If you mean "literal" in the sense of "literal blood," as in "actual blood," then, of course, the blood of Jesus here is not literal, since there is no actual blood, of any sort, in the heavenly sanctuary.

MM: The blood in Jesus' body is real, too, right?

Yes, the blood in Jesus' blood is real. Are you thinking Jesus pokes Himself with a needle, and dispenses blood over the alter to make atonement for us? What's the point here?

Jesus became sin for us.

Which means what?

He bears our sins in His body and blood in the most holy place. "Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree." (1 Peter 2:24) This is literal, isn't it?

What do you mean "literal"? By the way, the verse you cited states that Christ bore our sins on the tree, not that He bears them in the MHP. (I'm not disagreeing with your point, that He bears our sins now in the MHP, just pointing out that the verse you cited doesn't say that).

Sin is an act we perform, which takes place in a certain time and place. Say I wilfully tell a lie for personal gain, as an example. Jesus does not literally bear that lie, right? Because that would be an impossibility. A lie is not a "thing" which can be placed from one place to another. You cannot say to me, "Tom, give me that lie. I'll keep it for you on my shelf. When you need it, I'll give it back." It's not like a pillow, or something like that.

These phrases which we repeat mean something. We should meditate upon what the meaning of the phrases we use are. There's great value in that. It's amazing how profound these simple words are (e.g. Christ bears our sins; the blood of Jesus cleanses us from our sin), but their meaning must be understood spiritually, not physically. (e.g. we do not take a physical bath in Jesus' blood, as if it were water, to cleans us from sin).

Jesus did not cease bearing our sins in His body and blood when He rose from the grave and returned to heaven. That's how He transferred them from us to the heavenly sanctuary.

I agree with this.

TE: Sin resides in our minds. The problem of sin is there. The plan of salvation is a means to cleans US from sin. We are the ones who need it!

MM: Our sins also reside within Jesus.

Meaning what?

Our sins are also recorded in the books in heaven. In this way, by these means, our sins have a physical existence and location outside of us.

The recording of a thing does not give a physical existence to the thing. For example, if you buy a house, that transaction is recorded. That recorded transaction does not constitute a house. If you go to the county courthouse, you will not see your house there. The house does not have a physical existence outside of your property.

Jesus will blot the memory and record of specific sins from our minds and books.

This is getting to the spiritual meaning involved in the words, although this should not be understood as an arbitrary act on Christ's part, but rather as the development of our character as we mature through faith in Him. In other words, He doesn't perform a labotomy on us to alter our brains to make us forget things. But we are completely healed from our sin, and "the former things are passed away." Not like Alzeimer's disease, but like a fully healed addict.

He will physically place them on Satan in the lake of fire.

Sins are not physical things. They cannot be physically transferred, because they aren't physical.

They will literally cease to exist when he dies.

Sin resides in the mind. When no one is alive who chooses to sin, then sin will cease to exist, and for that reason.

TE: As we ask questions regarding what certain texts mean, what we are really seeking to do is to understand the spiritual truth involved, so that we, by believing the gospel, can be cleansed of our sin (also a phrase, conveying spiritual truth, which needs to be understood, but this post is long enough).

MM: Yes, of course, there are spiritual aspects of the truth. There are also literal, physical aspects.

The spiritual aspects are real. They can also, rightfully, be called "literal." However, they are not physical, at least in the sense you are speaking of. That is, sin physically exists in the mind, and our minds (or, perhaps, "brains" would be a better choice of word) physically change, as our thinking changes, so there is a physical aspect to our salvation. However, there is no such thing as physical sins which get transferred from one location to another. This is symbolic language given to communicate spiritual truth. The spiritual truth communicated is sufficient. There is no need for an addition meaning to the spiritual truth communicated. Indeed, the spiritual truth communicated, once understood, obviates any necessary for some additional meaning. E.g. when we understand what "the blood of Jesus cleanses us from sin" means, we do not need to think in terms of physically applying Jesus' blood to ourselves in order to become clean, nor does it make sense to do so.

Just exactly how Jesus became sin for us is a mystery.

What do you mean by saying, "Jesus became sin for us"? Before stating it is a mystery, it would probably be good to define what's meant by the phrase.

Just exactly how He bears our sins and second death in His body and blood is also a mystery.

It would be good to define this as well. It sounds a bit like you're thinking in terms of something which doesn't make sense (e.g., like sin being a physical thing which has a physical existence) and, of course, that would be a mystery (not something which can be understood, since it doesn't make sense).

But that's precisely what He is doing for us right now in the most holy place. It is all very literal and very awesome.

I still don't know what you think these things mean. For example, you state that Christ bears our sin, which indeed He does. But what does that mean?

Again, to address the title of this thread:

Jesus' blood is not defiled by the sins it bears, nor does His blood cleanse the sins it bears.

Jesus' blood is bearing our sins?

His blood is merely the means by which He bears our sins in His body in the most holy place until the day He places them on Satan in the lake of fire where our sins will cease to exist.

You're suggesting that Jesus removes our sins from His blood, and then places them on Satan? Like with a syringe?

Here's a question to consider. Given that sin exists in us, because it resides in our mind, could we say that Jesus bears our sin, because they reside in His mind? (of course, how they reside would be completely different, since we have committed sin, and Christ has not.)

TE: Here's a question to consider. Given that sin exists in us, because it resides in our mind, could we say that Jesus bears our sin, because they reside in His mind?

MM: Of course Jesus is consciously aware of the fact He is bearing our sins in His body. But the Bible simply says He is bearing our sins in His body - not in His mind. Just exactly how He does it is a mystery.

Although sin is not a substance, it is the transgression of God's law. Sin is any thought, word, or deed that violates the word of God, the law of God, and the sinless example of the Son of God. In this sense sin assumes a physical form in the person of sinners.

"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." In the same way faith is a substance, so to sin is a substance.

TE: Here's a question to consider. Given that sin exists in us, because it resides in our mind, could we say that Jesus bears our sin, because they reside in His mind?

MM: Of course Jesus is consciously aware of the fact He is bearing our sins in His body. But the Bible simply says He is bearing our sins in His body - not in His mind. Just exactly how He does it is a mystery.

The Bible says "My kidneys instruct me in the night seasons" (Ps. 16:7). I think it would be a good idea to ask, "What does the Bible mean when it says such and such" rather than just say "It's a mystery." For example, in reading Ps. 16:7, would you respond, "The Bible says our kidneys instruct us in the night season. Just how our kidneys do this is a mystery."

I really don't understand what hermaneutic you are using to try to understand Scripture. It seems you are not asking the most basic and important question, which is, "What does (whatever) mean?"

For example, when the Scriptures say that Christ bore our sins in His body, the question we should ask is "what does this mean?" You don't (as far as I can tell) attempt to answer this question, but merely comment, "This is what the Bible says. How He does this is a mystery."

The teachings in Scripture are not arbitrary. There is spiritual truth which needs to be discerned. Otherwise we're just dealing with hocus pocus.

Although sin is not a substance, it is the transgression of God's law. Sin is any thought, word, or deed that violates the word of God, the law of God, and the sinless example of the Son of God. In this sense sin assumes a physical form in the person of sinners.

In what sense is a thought, word or deed a physical form in a person? Leave aside the question of sin, for a moment. In what sense is *any* thought, word or deed a physical form in the person?

"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." In the same way faith is a substance, so to sin is a substance.

The word translated "substance" is more commonly translated "confidence". It should be extremely obvious that Paul was not using the word translated "substance" in the sense you are suggesting. Once again, you would be well served by asking the question, "What does this mean?"

TE: For example, in reading Ps. 16:7, would you respond, "The Bible says our kidneys instruct us in the night season. Just how our kidneys do this is a mystery."

MM: The relationship between mind and body is indeed a mystery. Yes, we know a lot about it, but there is more about it that we do not know. We are "fearfully and wonderfully made". Here is a quick study on Psalm 16:7. From it I conclude the reins of the heart symbolize our conscience.


TE: In what sense is a thought, word or deed a physical form in a person? Leave aside the question of sin, for a moment. In what sense is *any* thought, word or deed a physical form in the person?

MM: It has to do with the relationship between mind and body, right? Thoughts, words, and deeds do not exist in a vacuum. They are the byproduct of mind and body. They are both physical and spiritual.

TE: The word translated "substance" is more commonly translated "confidence". It should be extremely obvious that Paul was not using the word translated "substance" in the sense you are suggesting. Once again, you would be well served by asking the question, "What does this mean?"

MM: Faith is the confidence of things hoped for? Confidence may be a fruit of faith, but what is the substance? I believe we are the substance of faith. “Faith is not reality.” Apart from the faithful, faith has no substance. It’s simply an idea. Our believing the promises of God is what gives them physical form on earth. “It is inexplainable and immeasurable, beyond all human expression.”


In a similar way, sin takes on physical form in the person of sinners. Otherwise, sin is just an idea. Sin also assumed physical form in Jesus. He became the substance of sin. In destroying sinners God destroys sin. When Jesus consumed our sin and second death on the cross, He became the lawful owner of sin and death. Yes, it has to do with the mind, but it also involves the body. Mind and body are inseparable. But ideas have no substance without the body.

Consider this. When a person dies, his spirit or character returns to God. It is preserved in heaven until the day God restores it to the resurrected person. Character is the essence of who we are, it is “a quality of the soul”. When God resurrects a person and places their character back in them they resume where they left off. There is something intrinsically physical about character. It's more than just an idea. Just exactly how God stores it in heaven is a mystery. So to, sin is stored in heaven, in Jesus, in the most holy place. It will cease having a physical form when Satan and sinners die in the lake of fire. Then sin will cease to exist as a substance, but it will exist as an idea.

Before responding, I'd like to say that I thought this was a particularly well written post (that is, yours, the one I'm responding to).

In a similar way, sin takes on physical form in the person of sinners. Otherwise, sin is just an idea.

This is along the lines of what I've been saying. That is, sin is not a literal thing which can be physically held or transmitted. You say that in order to be other than "just an idea," it must take on physical form in the presence of sinners. Now is sin takes shape in the form of persons, then it should be clear that the blood transmitting sin cannot be a thing which should be taken literally, since people are not transmitted by blood. This gets back to the question of investigating what is the spiritual truth which is being communicated by the symbols.

Sin also assumed physical form in Jesus. He became the substance of sin.

This is an interesting idea. Jesus became the substance of sin. I'm not sure what this means. This seems to beg the question, "What is the subtance of sin"?


In destroying sinners God destroys sin.

This isn't possible. If God could destroy sin by destroying sinners, there would be no need for the Great Controversy. He would have simply destroyed Satan, and that would have been the end of it. But destroying Satan would have made things worse, not better. It would not have been evident that sin results in destruction, and the followers of God would have mistakenly thought that God was arbitrarily taking action to end it, rather than it playing itself out. This is explained in the chapter "It Is Finished" from "The Desire of Ages" (amongst other places, but this is the clearest that I'm aware of).



Please note the following points:
a)The end does not come as a result of an arbitrary action of God.
b)Rather, the rejectors of God's mercy reap that which they have sown. (by way of comparison, take a look at the first chapter of "The Great Controversy" which discusses the destruction of Jerusalem, where the same principles are laid out).
c)Sinners are destroyed as a result of serparating themselves from God, and cutting themselves off from life. That is, their death is a voluntary choice initiated by themselves. This is also explained in "The Great Contoversy" 542 ("The destiny of the wicked is fixed by their own choice. Their exclusion from heaven is voluntary with themselves,and just and merciful on the part of God.")
d)At the beginning of the great controversy, the angels did not understand that death is "the inevitable result of sin." This did not become evident until the death of Christ.
e)Had Satan and his followers been left to reap the full result of their sin, it would not have been apparent that their perishing was the inevitable result of sin. Notice it doesn't say "the inevitable result of God's punishment of sin" but rather "the inevitable result of sin."
f)A doubt of God's goodness would have remained, allowing an evil seed to produce deadly fruit. What is the evil seed? A doubt as to God's goodness.

Summing up, the problem God faced was that He knew that sin results in death, but His followers didn't. If he allowed the inevitable to happen right away, God's actions would have been misinterpreted. Rather than being understood as God's simply permitting the inevitable to happen, it would have been perceived as an action which God was initiating. That would have been in harmony with Satan's accusations regarding God's character. Instead God must allow the truth regarding sin to be demonstrated first, before allowing sin to suffer its inevitable result. This is why things have taken so long to be resolved, and still we're not finished as the great controversy continues, and will continue, until the truth about God is known.

At any rate, God does not solve the sin problem by destroying sinners, but by destroying sin, a much more difficult problem. The former could be resolved by force in a moment. That later requires the wisdom, genious, and love of an all-knowing self-sacrificing God.


When Jesus consumed our sin and second death on the cross,

Sin isn't a thing which can be consumed. Sin is a "thought, word or deed," to use your words. Jesus did not "consume" our thoughts, words, or deeds on the cross. Rather, He provided a means by which we can be set free from the power of sin.

He became the lawful owner of sin and death.

This sentence needs to be fleshed out. First of all, what does it mean to "own" sin? Or to "own" death? Secondly, to suggest that Jesus became a "lawful owner" implies that before Jesus became such, either He would an anlawful owner of sin and death, or sin and death had no owner.

Yes, it has to do with the mind, but it also involves the body. Mind and body are inseparable.

Of course this is true, but this isn't relevant in regards to our discussion. To refresh our memories as to the context of the discussion, we are discussing the question as to what it means to say that Jesus' blood is the medium by which sin is transferred to the heavenly sanctuary. I have been asserting that sin is not a "thing" which can be transferred, either by blood or anything else. (One can speak of sin being transferred from mind to mind; that would make sense) As a response to my assertion, you have been attempting to argue that sin is a physical thing which can be transferred. Your argument has been that the substance of sin, the "physical thing" which can be transmitted, is the body of the sinner. But this is not an adequate argument, because the body of the sinner does not get transmitted by Jesus' blood, which I'm sure you will admit.


But ideas have no substance without the body.

Consider this. When a person dies, his spirit or character returns to God. It is preserved in heaven until the day God restores it to the resurrected person. Character is the essence of who we are, it is “a quality of the soul”. When God resurrects a person and places their character back in them they resume where they left off. There is something intrinsically physical about character. It's more than just an idea. Just exactly how God stores it in heaven is a mystery. So to, sin is stored in heaven, in Jesus, in the most holy place. It will cease having a physical form when Satan and sinners die in the lake of fire. Then sin will cease to exist as a substance, but it will exist as an idea.

I think the difficulty here is in conceiving of sin as a "thing," as something that can be divorced from the mind of the sinner. Your example of character just makes the point I'm making. Our characters exist in our mind, and are demonstrated by our actions. God knows our character, and is able to reproduce it by reconstituting our minds when we are resurrected.

We could say that our sins are "stored" in Jesus in the Most Holy Place because He knows them; that is, they are stored in His mind. That would make sense. The cleansing of the sanctuary then can be understood as involving the cleansing of our minds, the purifying of our conscience, from sin (which is, indeed, precisely the point Hebrews makes). The work of the atonement involves our taking on "the mind of Christ." That is, we learn to see things as He sees them; His way of thinking becomes ours. Ellen White talks about this eloquently in the following quote from "Christ's Object Lessons"

TE: At any rate, God does not solve the sin problem by destroying sinners, but by destroying sin, a much more difficult problem.

MM: Here's the quote I had in mind: "In all who submit to His power the Spirit of God will consume sin. But if men cling to sin, they become identified with it. Then the glory of God, which destroys sin, must destroy them." {DA 107.4} Sin, apart from sinners, is not a substance that can be destroyed. It can only be destroyed by destroying sinners.

TE: Your argument has been that the substance of sin, the "physical thing" which can be transmitted, is the body of the sinner. But this is not an adequate argument, because the body of the sinner does not get transmitted by Jesus' blood, which I'm sure you will admit.

MM: Actually, I meant to say that Jesus became sin for us, thus, He was equipped to transport our sin in His body and blood to heaven. "A body hast thou prepared me." (Heb 10:5) Neither the Father nor the Spirit are capable of bearing our sins in the most holy place because they do not have a human body. Sin can only reside in a created body. It cannot reside in the body of God.

TE: Summing up, the problem God faced was that He knew that sin results in death, but His followers didn't.

MM: We are not going to agree on this point. I believe God is the one who will execute sinners in the lake of fire, and you believe God will allow sin to do it.

TE: At any rate, God does not solve the sin problem by destroying sinners, but by destroying sin, a much more difficult problem.

MM: Here's the quote I had in mind: "In all who submit to His power the Spirit of God will consume sin. But if men cling to sin, they become identified with it. Then the glory of God, which destroys sin, must destroy them." {DA 107.4} Sin, apart from sinners, is not a substance that can be destroyed. It can only be destroyed by destroying sinners.

Destroying sin involves much, much more than the destruction of sinners, which is the point I made. If it were simply a matter of destroying a sinner, Satan could have been destroyed at the beginning, and that would have been the end of things. Destroying sin involves MUCH more than simply destroying the sinner.

You will notice, in the quote you provided, that it is the destruction of SIN which results in the destruction of the sinner, not the other way around.

TE: Your argument has been that the substance of sin, the "physical thing" which can be transmitted, is the body of the sinner. But this is not an adequate argument, because the body of the sinner does not get transmitted by Jesus' blood, which I'm sure you will admit.

MM: Actually, I meant to say that Jesus became sin for us, thus, He was equipped to transport our sin in His body and blood to heaven. "A body hast thou prepared me." (Heb 10:5) Neither the Father nor the Spirit are capable of bearing our sins in the most holy place because they do not have a human body. Sin can only reside in a created body. It cannot reside in the body of God.

Sin is a function of the mind, not the body. The body can, and does, suffer the consequences of sin, but it cannot sin. Only the mind can sin. Christ can bear our sins as a human being because He had a human mind. Of course, in order to have a human mind, He had to have a human body, to house the human brain in which the human mind functions, but that's a secondary (and unimportant) point.

TE: Summing up, the problem God faced was that He knew that sin results in death, but His followers didn't.

MM: We are not going to agree on this point. I believe God is the one who will execute sinners in the lake of fire, and you believe God will allow sin to do it.

I think Ellen White is very clear in the quote I provided as to what will happen. I think what she wrote is accurate and Biblical.

I know you like to quote the GC passage, which is very similar to what we read in Revelation, and I have responded in my posts as to how I think these visions relate to the DA 764 quote. However, I can't recall you're ever attempting an explanation of the DA 764 quote. It's as if it didn't exist (but it does).

There's also the DA 108 quote, which brings out an important principle, which is that the same thing which causes the death of the wicked imparts life to the righteous. This goes along with the point that Kevin made, from Scripture, regarding the meaning of fire.

There are also passages in the Great Controversy which bring out this same principle, such as GC 541-543 and GC 36, 37. Ellen White suggested we interpret her writings as we would Scripture, by comparing all the things she has written on a subject to come to a conclusion.

Well, I've mentioned quite a number of texts here, but just seeing you deal with DA 764, and DA 108, would be nice.

TE: Destroying sin involves much, much more than the destruction of sinners, which is the point I made.

MM: True. It was necessary for God to give Satan time to demonstrate the hideousness of sinning. However, had our First Parents resisted his initial temptation, God would have destroyed Satan right away. It would have been clear to the on-looking universe that sinning is incurable. God would have been justified in destroying the evil angels.

TE: You will notice, in the quote you provided, that it is the destruction of SIN which results in the destruction of the sinner, not the other way around.

MM: Again, sinning cannot exist without a host. The only way to destroy the results of sinning is to destroy sinners. God cannot destroy sin. The potential for FMAs choosing to sin will continue to exist throughout eternity. Of course they will not exercise their freedom to sin because they love God and hate sinning.

TE: Christ can bear our sins as a human being because He had a human mind. Of course, in order to have a human mind, He had to have a human body, to house the human brain in which the human mind functions, but that's a secondary (and unimportant) point.

MM: The importance of Jesus' human body cannot be overstressed. God has a mind and knows our sins, but it is not the same as Jesus having a human mind and body and knowing our sins. There is more to it than meets the eye.

TE: Well, I've mentioned quite a number of texts here, but just seeing you deal with DA 764, and DA 108, would be nice.

MM: DA 108 is referring to the second coming and not the lake of fire. The brightness of Jesus, like the latent glow on Moses' face, is indeed a consuming fire. DA 764 also describes the effects of God's brightness upon the unsaved, but it doesn't specify the lake of fire. It could have happened to Satan when he first sinned but God prevented it so that the on-looking universe could understand it.

Tom, please hear me. I agree with you that the glory of God is a consuming fire. Please believe me. I have always agreed with you. Even if we were to totally cease from sinning in this lifetime, God's unveiled presence would still consume us. Sinful flesh cannot survive in the presence of God. Not even Jesus, while inhabiting sinful flesh, could appear in the unveiled presence of God.

Where we disagree is concerning the "fire" God rains down upon the wicked after the Millennium. I believe this fire is literal fire. You believe it is the glory of God. On this we will probably never agree. But please do not continue to insist I haven't ever commented on the fire described in DA 108 or 764. I believe both the glory of God and literal fire will be employed to punish and destroy unsaved sinners in the lake of fire.

TE: Destroying sin involves much, much more than the destruction of sinners, which is the point I made.

MM: True. It was necessary for God to give Satan time to demonstrate the hideousness of sinning. However, had our First Parents resisted his initial temptation, God would have destroyed Satan right away. It would have been clear to the on-looking universe that sinning is incurable. God would have been justified in destroying the evil angels.

This is an extremely anthropomorphic way of looking at things. A vast number of worlds were created, all with trees at which Satan could tempt. Yet on this one planet you suggest that God would be justified in destroying Satan if the temptation were overcome. Why wasn't this sufficient in the millions of other worlds?

TE: You will notice, in the quote you provided, that it is the destruction of SIN which results in the destruction of the sinner, not the other way around.

MM: Again, sinning cannot exist without a host. The only way to destroy the results of sinning is to destroy sinners.

Sinners can be destroyed by the destruction of sin, since that's what the text says.

God cannot destroy sin.

Please read the text!



MM:The potential for FMAs choosing to sin will continue to exist throughout eternity. Of course they will not exercise their freedom to sin because they love God and hate sinning.

TE: Christ can bear our sins as a human being because He had a human mind. Of course, in order to have a human mind, He had to have a human body, to house the human brain in which the human mind functions, but that's a secondary (and unimportant) point.

MM: The importance of Jesus' human body cannot be overstressed. God has a mind and knows our sins, but it is not the same as Jesus having a human mind and body and knowing our sins. There is more to it than meets the eye.

Again, the mind is the salient point. Sin is an act of the will, which is a function of the mind, not the body.

TE: Well, I've mentioned quite a number of texts here, but just seeing you deal with DA 764, and DA 108, would be nice.

MM: DA 108 is referring to the second coming and not the lake of fire.

That's not important, is it, to the principles being expressed? The glory of God is a consuming fire to sin, wherever it is found. That's a principle true for any time, is it not? (as are the rest of the principles in the passage of DA 107-108).

The brightness of Jesus, like the latent glow on Moses' face, is indeed a consuming fire. DA 764 also describes the effects of God's brightness upon the unsaved, but it doesn't specify the lake of fire.

Sure it does. Just take a look at the Scripture passages she cites. It would be careful in the things you assert, to check if they are true or not before stating them so forcefully.

It could have happened to Satan when he first sinned but God prevented it so that the on-looking universe could understand it.

I'm not sure what "it" is, but this sounds similar to what I wrote.

Tom, please hear me. I agree with you that the glory of God is a consuming fire. Please believe me. I have always agreed with you. Even if we were to totally cease from sinning in this lifetime, God's unveiled presence would still consume us. Sinful flesh cannot survive in the presence of God. Not even Jesus, while inhabiting sinful flesh, could appear in the unveiled presence of God.

That's an interesting assertion. Do you have anything to back it up? That is, you are asserting that it is sinful flesh, and not sin, which causes us not to be able to abide in God's presence. I'm not aware of this being asserted anywhere in inspiration. I'd be interested in seeing such a text.

Where we disagree is concerning the "fire" God rains down upon the wicked after the Millennium. I believe this fire is literal fire. You believe it is the glory of God. On this we will probably never agree. But please do not continue to insist I haven't ever commented on the fire described in DA 108 or 764. I believe both the glory of God and literal fire will be employed to punish and destroy unsaved sinners in the lake of fire.

I don't disagree that literal fire will be involved, as you should well know, given how many posts you've read that I've written. When you write things like this, it makes me wonder how carefully you are reading the posts. I say this because this isn't something I've asserted once or twice, but very many times, and about which we've had long discussions.

I said I don't recall your having commented on DA 764, not that you haven't. I still don't know what your thoughts are on it, as you didn't express them, other than to ask me not to "insist" upon something I wasn't even suggesting, let alone "insist"! Here's what I wrote:



Please be more careful in your reading of posts. In just this one post, to which I am responding, are several examples of your stating things about what I wrote which are inaccurate.

That having been said, I'd still be interested in your thoughts on DA 764. You will notice, by taking a look at the context (as well as the Scriptures she quotes) that Ellen White *is* discussing the lake of fire and the destruction of the wicked.

TE: This is an extremely anthropomorphic way of looking at things. A vast number of worlds were created, all with trees at which Satan could tempt. Yet on this one planet you suggest that God would be justified in destroying Satan if the temptation were overcome. Why wasn't this sufficient in the millions of other worlds?

MM: Beings on “other worlds” were created before mankind and before the fall of Lucifer. They choose not to eat the forbidden fruit long before we were created and long before Lucifer fell. They made a decision not to side with Lucifer before he was banished to earth, before we were created. They are never going to reverse their decision. They are “eternally secure”. They agreed that Satan should be banished from heaven. They understand there is no hope for him. They believe he is worthy of death. The more they watch him on earth the more they are convinced he is worthy of death. Check out these quotes:


TE: Sinners can be destroyed by the destruction of sin, since that's what the text says.

MM: Sinning and sinners are two different aspects of sin, right? Sin, apart from a sinner sinning, is not the problem. Sinning is the problem. Sin, as an idea, is no problem. It will exist for eternity. Therefore, to destroy the results of sinning God must destroy sinners and restore paradise lost. Sinning and sinners are inseparable.

TE: Again, the mind is the salient point. Sin is an act of the will, which is a function of the mind, not the body.

MM: We both agree mind and body are inseparable. We cannot have one without the other. However, it was necessary for Jesus to inherit sinful flesh so He could become sin. Having a mind was not enough. He needed a human mind and body to become sin.

TE: “Not even Jesus, while inhabiting sinful flesh, could appear in the unveiled presence of God.” That's an interesting assertion. Do you have anything to back it up? That is, you are asserting that it is sinful flesh, and not sin, which causes us not to be able to abide in God's presence. I'm not aware of this being asserted anywhere in inspiration. I'd be interested in seeing such a text.

MM: It stands to reason. Where do we read of Jesus, while dwelling in sinful flesh, being in the presence of God’s unveiled glory? We don’t. Why not? 1) Because sin cannot exist in the presence of God, and 2) Jesus became sin. Thus, while here, Jesus was unable to be in God’s unveiled presence. Sinful flesh cannot abide in the unveiled presence of God.

TE: That having been said, I'd still be interested in your thoughts on DA 764. You will notice, by taking a look at the context (as well as the Scriptures she quotes) that Ellen White *is* discussing the lake of fire and the destruction of the wicked.

MM: “I agree with you that the glory of God is a consuming fire.” The fire of God’s glory consumes sins in sinners in one of two ways: 1) God’s glory motivates people to cease sinning, thus sin is destroyed in the sinner, or 2) God’s glory will destroy sinners with their sins if they refuse to accept Jesus as their personal Savior and cease sinning.

I do not believe the fire rained down upon the unsaved at the end of time is the glory of God. I believe it is a different source of fire. However, I also happen to believe the fire of God’s glory can cause combustible material, like flesh and rubbish, to ignite and burn up. Do you?

By the way, I understand you believe there will be literal fire at the end of time. I didn’t post anything that indicates otherwise. In the following quote, which I have enumerated, Sister White makes it clear that the fire God rains down upon the wicked causes them and the rubbish of the earth to burn up until there is nothing left to burn. In the Bible, this fire is compared to the fire that burned up Sodom, which was a different source of fire than God's glory.

The following quotes teach that the wages of sin is death, that pardon does not negate the death penalty. Jesus had to die for us because someone has to die for our sins. There is no way around it.

AG 139
Justice demands that sin be not merely pardoned, but the death penalty must be executed. God, in the gift of His only-begotten Son, met both these requirements. By dying in man's stead, Christ exhausted the penalty and provided a pardon. {AG 139.2}

1BC 1086
In the plan of redemption there must be the shedding of blood, for death must come in consequence of man's sin. The beasts for sacrificial offerings were to prefigure Christ. In the slain victim, man was to see the fulfillment for the time being of God's word, "Ye shall surely die" {1BC 1086.7}

TE: This is an extremely anthropomorphic way of looking at things. A vast number of worlds were created, all with trees at which Satan could tempt. Yet on this one planet you suggest that God would be justified in destroying Satan if the temptation were overcome. Why wasn't this sufficient in the millions of other worlds?

MM: Beings on “other worlds” were created before mankind and before the fall of Lucifer. They choose not to eat the forbidden fruit long before we were created and long before Lucifer fell. They made a decision not to side with Lucifer before he was banished to earth, before we were created. They are never going to reverse their decision. They are “eternally secure”. They agreed that Satan should be banished from heaven. They understand there is no hope for him. They believe he is worthy of death. The more they watch him on earth the more they are convinced he is worthy of death.

I don't know what point you are trying to make. My point was that if a race not falling, although being tempted, was reason enough to destroy Satan, there was no need to wait for man to do so, since Satan had been encountered by many other races besides ours. And there is no reason why man's not falling to temptation would justify God's killing Satan. Why do you think that makes any sense?

I'm also not sure where you are getting the idea that the beings from other worlds chose not to eat of the forbidden tree long before Lucifer was created. Even if that were true, you can see from the quotes that Lucifer was able to tempt them at the tree, after he fell, so the unfallen worlds had to confront Satan just like man did. If overcoming Satan is reason enough to destroy him, then that had already happened before man was created.

TE: Sinners can be destroyed by the destruction of sin, since that's what the text says.

MM: Sinning and sinners are two different aspects of sin, right?

What?

Sin, apart from a sinner sinning, is not the problem.

Sin, apart from a sinner sinning, doesn't exist.

Sinning is the problem. Sin, as an idea, is no problem. It will exist for eternity.

Sin will be destroyed, and NOT exist for all eternity. That's what the Great Controversy is about, eliminating sin.

Therefore, to destroy the results of sinning God must destroy sinners and restore paradise lost. Sinning and sinners are inseparable.

No, the problem cannot be solved by destroying sinners, which I've explained at length in the previous posts. If the problem could have been solved that way, Satan could have been destroyed at the very beginning. SIN must be destroyed. The problem must be met at the root.

Sin gets its power as God's character is misunderstood. This is how Satan deceived both angel and man. In order to set things right, God's true character had to be revealed. In Christ, we see the truth about God (we being both man and unfallen beings). That truth is what wins the Great Controversy.

After all have seen the truth about God, God can allow Satan and his followers to "reap that which they have sown" and suffer "the inevitable consequences of sin" as discussed in DA 764.

Sin will have been destroyed because selfishness, which is the root of sin, will be gone. As sin leaves, so will suffering, misery and death, as these things cannot exist apart from sin.

TE: Again, the mind is the salient point. Sin is an act of the will, which is a function of the mind, not the body.

MM: We both agree mind and body are inseparable. We cannot have one without the other. However, it was necessary for Jesus to inherit sinful flesh so He could become sin. Having a mind was not enough. He needed a human mind and body to become sin.

What do you mean in saying Christ "became sin"? What is your idea as to what it means to say that Christ bore our sins? You seem to have an understanding that sin is a physical substance that in some mysterious way was infused into Christ's body (or into His blood(?)). Am I understanding you correctly?

TE: “Not even Jesus, while inhabiting sinful flesh, could appear in the unveiled presence of God.” That's an interesting assertion. Do you have anything to back it up? That is, you are asserting that it is sinful flesh, and not sin, which causes us not to be able to abide in God's presence. I'm not aware of this being asserted anywhere in inspiration. I'd be interested in seeing such a text.

MM: It stands to reason. Where do we read of Jesus, while dwelling in sinful flesh, being in the presence of God’s unveiled glory? We don’t.

Using this same "logic" we could just as well "reason" that Christ could not have appeared in the presence of Mars, since we don't read of that taking place anywhere.

Why not? 1) Because sin cannot exist in the presence of God, and 2) Jesus became sin. Thus, while here, Jesus was unable to be in God’s unveiled presence. Sinful flesh cannot abide in the unveiled presence of God.

Please explain what the phrases you are using mean. What do you mean by saying Jesus became sin? When did Jesus become sin? Did He become sin when He took sinful flesh? Is the reason that Jesus could not dwell in God's presence because He became sin (as you say here) or because He took sinful flesh (which you said before)?

TE: That having been said, I'd still be interested in your thoughts on DA 764. You will notice, by taking a look at the context (as well as the Scriptures she quotes) that Ellen White *is* discussing the lake of fire and the destruction of the wicked.

MM: “I agree with you that the glory of God is a consuming fire.” The fire of God’s glory consumes sins in sinners in one of two ways: 1) God’s glory motivates people to cease sinning, thus sin is destroyed in the sinner, or 2) God’s glory will destroy sinners with their sins if they refuse to accept Jesus as their personal Savior and cease sinning.

I do not believe the fire rained down upon the unsaved at the end of time is the glory of God. I believe it is a different source of fire. However, I also happen to believe the fire of God’s glory can cause combustible material, like flesh and rubbish, to ignite and burn up. Do you?

By the way, I understand you believe there will be literal fire at the end of time. I didn’t post anything that indicates otherwise.

You wrote the following:



That sounded to me like you were saying I didn't believe the fire to which destroys the wicked to be literal.

In the following quote, which I have enumerated, Sister White makes it clear that the fire God rains down upon the wicked causes them and the rubbish of the earth to burn up until there is nothing left to burn. In the Bible, this fire is compared to the fire that burned up Sodom, which was a different source of fire than God's glory.

I still haven't seen an explanation of DA 764. DA 764 says the following:



If the wicked are killed by literal fire, then that IS an act of God, and is NOT the result of their placing themselves so out of harmony with God this His glory becomes to them a consuming fire. If the wicked are destroyed by the glory of God, then they are NOT destroyed by literal fire.

Also her whole point wouldn't make any sense. She says that if God allowed Satan and his followers to reap the full result of their sin, they would have perished, and it would it would have appeared that this was due to something God did to them rather than being the result of their own choice. Now if God kills them by burning them with literal fire, then how could there possibly be the confusion Ellen White is talking about? It would be *obvious* that the wicked died because God killed them by burning them. How would waiting until the death of Christ make it any less confusing that their death was not caused by an act on God's part, as opposed to the result of their choice? Especially if their death is in reality caused by God?!

Some more problems I see with your view, as I'm understanding it, is that it would require God's supernaturally keeping them alive so that He could torture them by burning them alive, which is a monstrous thing to suggest. This depicts an unimaginably cruel portrait of our Creator. I can't help but thing that the difficulties you have spoken of in another thread are related to these ideas. How we view God has in intimate connection to how easy we perceive the yoke of following him to be, and how heavy we perceive His burden to be.

Another problem is how Satan could be destroyed by literal fire, given that he is an angel.

Yet another problem is why God would do such a horrible thing as burn someone in something like molten lava, supernaturally keeping them alive, and to think that this is somehow "just".

1. That beings from “other worlds” chose not to rebel with Satan is evident from the fact they were not banished to earth with him.

2. That Satan tried to persuade them to rebel with him is evident from the quotes I posted in my last post. Their decision was final. No further temptations would have led them astray.

3. That they were tested with a forbidden tree is evident from the same list of quotes. However, the quotes do not indicate whether or not Satan tried to deceive them at the forbidden tree.

4. Although they felt Satan was worthy of death, it is clear they did not understand the relationship between sinning and dying. They needed more evidence.

5. Had man successfully resisted Satan at the forbidden tree, he would have been made eternally secure. Satan would have had no one else to tempt. Watching the evil angels squabble among themselves would have served no purpose. The great controversy would have ended.

6. “I'm also not sure where you are getting the idea that the beings from other worlds chose not to eat of the forbidden tree long before Lucifer was created.” I never said such a thing.


Sin (as an idea, as a concept) will exist throughout eternity. Sinning, however, will not happen again.


As stated above, I believe sin as a concept will exist forever. It is sinning that will have been destroyed forever. Not that it isn’t theoretically possible, but because FMAs will never choose to sin again. They do not lose the freedom or ability to sin. As such, sin will exist throughout eternity. It's all about semantics, isn't it?


I cannot explain how Jesus became sin. The Bible says Jesus became sin. I believe it. I don’t need to be able to explain it right now. I realize that is unsatisfactory for you.


1. Jesus could not have appeared on Mars for the simple reason sinful flesh cannot withstand it.

2. Jesus became sin when He became human, when He assumed sinful flesh. Both 1) being sin and 2) having sinful flesh made it impossible for Jesus to be in the unveiled presence of God. Sinning and having sinful flesh also makes it impossible for us to be in the unveiled presence of God.

What do you believe? What is the nature of the fire that God will rain down upon unsaved sinners at the end of time? I’m talking specifically about the “fire” in the following quote:

Fire comes down from God out of heaven. The earth is broken up. The weapons concealed in its depths are drawn forth. Devouring flames burst from every yawning chasm. The very rocks are on fire. The day has come that shall burn as an oven. The elements melt with fervent heat, the earth also, and the works that are therein are burned up. Malachi 4:1; 2 Peter 3:10. The earth's surface seems one molten mass--a vast, seething lake of fire. It is the time of the judgment and perdition of ungodly men--"the day of the Lord's vengeance, and the year of recompenses for the controversy of Zion." Isaiah 34:8. {GC 672.2}


1. The unfallen beings did not completely understand the nature of Satan’s rebellion. They knew somehow he was wrong, but they needed more time to watch it unfold.

2. Had God destroyed Satan before it was clear to the loyal beings why he was worthy of punishment and death they would have served God out of fear.

3. They are not unclear as to how Satan will die. They just need more time to be certain that he is worthy of death, that there is nothing wrong with law and love and government of God.

4. I disagree with how you explain why the loyal beings would not have understood the punishment and death of Satan. They understood enough to know he deserved to be banished to earth. They understood enough to help Jesus fight him and drive him out of heaven.

5. How sinners suffer in proportion to their sinfulness is a mystery. How some beings can burn longer than others is also a mystery. It doesn’t make God out to be a monster. Nor does it prevent me from loving God and wearing His yoke.

6. Satan feared for his life during the Flood. How much more fearful is fire? Angels are not immortal. They are not fire proof.

7. Holy angels rejoice over the destruction of the wicked during the seven last plagues. They even pray for a double portion of suffering. Obviously there is something righteous about rejoicing over the punishment of the wicked.


8. "I still haven't seen an explanation of DA 764." The fire of God’s glory consumes sins in sinners in one of two ways:

1) God’s glory motivates people to cease sinning, thus sin is destroyed in the sinner.

2) God’s glory will destroy sinners with their sins if they refuse to accept Jesus as their personal Savior and cease sinning.

I do not believe the fire rained down upon the unsaved at the end of time is the glory of God. I believe it is a different source of fire. Just exactly what part the glory of God plays in the lake of fire is not clear to me. Therefore, I do not have an answer for you regarding DA 764.

However, I also happen to believe the fire of God’s glory can cause combustible material, like flesh and rubbish, to ignite and burn up. Do you?

GC 673
While the earth was wrapped in the fire of destruction, the righteous abode safely in the Holy City. Upon those that had part in the first resurrection, the second death has no power. While God is to the wicked a consuming fire, He is to His people both a sun and a shield. Revelation 20:6; Psalm 84:11. {GC 673.3}

There are two types of fire mentioned above. One is a threat to the safety of the redeemed who must therefore remain in the city to avoid being destroyed. The other is the consuming fire of God's glory, which is not a threat to the redeemed.

GC 674
The fire that consumes the wicked purifies the earth. Every trace of the curse is swept away. No eternally burning hell will keep before the ransomed the fearful consequences of sin. {GC 674.1}

EW 294, 295
But fire from God out of heaven is rained upon them, and the great men, and mighty men, the noble, the poor and miserable, are all consumed together. I saw that some were quickly destroyed, while others suffered longer. They were punished according to the deeds done in the body. Some were many days consuming, and just as long as there was a portion of them unconsumed, all the sense of suffering remained. . . I then looked and saw the fire which had consumed the wicked, burning up the rubbish and purifying the earth. Again I looked and saw the earth purified. {EW 294, 295}

The same consuming fire that punishes the wicked according to their sinfulness also burns up the rubbish of the earth. It is this fire that the saints must flee from in the New Jerusalem in order to avoid being burned up with the wicked and the rubbish of earth.

Regarding your question about which fire it is, I think the way you appear to be about things is inadequate. That is, you look to be approaching prophecy as if you could just pluck verses hither and yon without regards to context and without regards to the fact that it's prophecy! Prophecy is not the same as an epistle, for example. The prophets are writing in terms of *symbols*. It's up to us to determine what the symbols mean, by comparing scripture with scripture, or, in the case of the Spirit of Prophecy, SOP with SOP.

Regarding your quote, you will notice that she quotes Malachi 4:1, which she *also* quotes in the DA 764 quote:



So comparing texts together, it's very clear to see that the fire being spoken of in your GC quote, which references Malachi 4:1, is the same fire spoken of here, which is clearly explained to be the glory of God. This is clear, isn't it?

So the conclusion is that the vision, whether of John or Ellen White, is explained by the plain speech of DA 764, where Ellen White is not describing a vision she saw, but explaining, in plain words, *what the vision means*.

1. The unfallen beings did not completely understand the nature of Satan’s rebellion. They knew somehow he was wrong, but they needed more time to watch it unfold.

Agreed.

2. Had God destroyed Satan before it was clear to the loyal beings why he was worthy of punishment and death they would have served God out of fear.

No! This is not in the least what Ellen White wrote. What she wrote was, " Had Satan and his host then been left to reap the full result of their sin, they would have perished; but it would not have been apparent to heavenly beings that this was the inevitable result of sin." Your replacing your words for hers, which would be fine if your words were communicating the same thought as hers, but the thoughts are completely different.

She is asserting that had God *left* Satan (note LEFT is a key word here) to reap the full result of sin, things would not have been clear. "Left" denotes the action of God's withdrawing (which is how God destroys, in agreement with GC 36-37 where God's destruction of Jerusalem is likewise described in terms of His withdrawing), not an active role of God's taking an action to cause Satan's demise. In fact, Ellen White explicitly denies God is doing this in the first sentences of the previous paragraph: "This is not an act of arbitrary power on the part of God. The rejecters of His mercy reap that which they have sown."

3. They are not unclear as to how Satan will die. They just need more time to be certain that he is worthy of death, that there is nothing wrong with law and love and government of God.

This is not at all what she wrote! She said nothing at all about their needing more time to be certain that he is worthy of death. She wrote that had God left them to perish as the inevitable result of their sin, it would not have been apparent to them what was happening. How Satan would die (that is, what was the cause of his death - sin, or an arbitrary act of God) is *precisely* what they were unclear about. They were unclear about this until the death of Christ.

It is the death of Christ which makes clear the truth about the judgment. That is, the death of Christ makes clear what the inevitable result of sin is, so that, after this has been seen, God can allow Satan and his host to suffer the "inevitable result of sin" without their being confusion on the angels part.

4. I disagree with how you explain why the loyal beings would not have understood the punishment and death of Satan. They understood enough to know he deserved to be banished to earth. They understood enough to help Jesus fight him and drive him out of heaven.

I think I pretty much just stated Ellen White's words, didn't I? Where is there any difference between what I wrote and what she wrote?

5. How sinners suffer in proportion to their sinfulness is a mystery.

It's not a mystery to me.

How some beings can burn longer than others is also a mystery.

Because you do not understand something does not make it a mystery.

It doesn’t make God out to be a monster. Nor does it prevent me from loving God and wearing His yoke.

You're not sticking to the points that are made. I said absolutely nothing about the wicked suffering for different amounts of time making God to be a monster. Please read more carefully.

Having a wrong view of God's character makes it much more difficult to love Him. Surely you'd agree to that.


6. Satan feared for his life during the Flood. How much more fearful is fire? Angels are not immortal. They are not fire proof.

To be clear here, you are asserting that fire, literal fire, any fire, would burn an angel? Does water make them wet?

7. Holy angels rejoice over the destruction of the wicked during the seven last plagues. They even pray for a double portion of suffering. Obviously there is something righteous about rejoicing over the punishment of the wicked.

You're missing the point of the passage, MM. The angels are not sadists. I'm sure many of the lost will be ones for whom they had care over. Would you rejoice over a loved one, say a spouse or child, being lost and pray for a double portion of their suffering?

Your expressing things as if there weren't real people involved, or as if the righteous were devoid of feelings. It reminds me of the following from Ellen White:



I'm sure your reaction will be that you don't believe that the wicked will suffer eternally, and that this is what this statement is talking about. However, the principles regarding cruelty being Satanic, and the righteous being devoid of humane feelings applies equally the view you are suggesting.

To torment someone by burning them alive, and, even worse, taking action to keep the alive so they can be caused even more and greater pain is cruel beyond words. To "rejoice" at such a thing is callous being words. I can only ask that you consider the meaning behind the words you are citing. Many statements in Scripture require thought to understand; simply taking isolated words as they read isn't sufficient. Many false doctrines are "established" in this way. For example, those who believe in an immortal soul read Revelation with the same hermaneutic you are using. They read that that there are souls under the alter, and read of those who will burn "forever and ever" and make the same types of arguments you are making. But Revelation is a prophecy, and the same rules which direct the interpretation those who mistakingly undertake to show that the wicked will burn for all eternity apply to "demonstrating" that angels rejoice in the suffering of human beings, and cry for more.

I think this has been treated in the previous post, where I pointed out that the same fire you are discussing here is the same fire discussed in DA 764. Kevin's post on fire would bear re-reading. The text in Isaiah 33:14, 15 asks "Who can dwell with the everlasting burnings." The answer is the righteous come. While God is a consuming fire to the wicked, He is a desired friend for the righteous. The same fire which melts the ice bakes the clay. Why the glory of God results in the destruction of one and joy in another is not due to something God does, but due to the action of the wicked and righteous.

From the beginning God has been seeking to save His children from the effects of sin and the deceptions of the evil one, who has, unfortunately, been so successful in vesting his attributes upon God. So few really believe that God is like Jesus Christ, yet it is this very truth that has the power to heal us.

Look how Jesus Christ responded to sinners. That's how God is. He did all He could to save, but left sinners to themselves if His presence was not desired. God will leave "Ephriam to his idols" if Ephriam will not heed the warning. The warning is not, "Listen to me, or I will kill you, after first burning you alive" but one of the destruction which sin causes. We have nothing to fear from God, but everything to fear from sin.

Yes, it is clear that the “fire” that consumes the wicked in the lake of fire is the glory of God. It is also clear that other forms of fire are at work, too.


The following list does not correspond with the previous list:

1. It is not clear to me what allowing or leaving someone to reap the results of their sinfulness means. Do they immediately implode or disintegrate? Does the glory of God cause them to burn up like the rubbish of the earth?

What causes sinners to die? Sin? How does sin cause them to die? Why doesn’t it cause us to die now? Is it because God is supernaturally preventing it from killing us, from burning us up? How is that not cruel?

By keeping us alive unnaturally all kinds of cruelty happens. We live long lives full of sin and sadness. Some people suffer years of torment and torture, dying lingering deaths in unbelievable pain and agony. Why? Because God keeps us alive unnaturally.

2. In what way is Jesus’ death an example of what it means to leave sinners to reap what they have sown? The description of Jesus’ death and the description of the death of the wicked in the lake of fire are very much unalike. Yes, there are some similarities, but many things are different. It is Satan, not Jesus, who will die in the lake of fire like the wicked.

3. Again, I believe the loyal angels understood Satan was worthy of death when they helped Jesus cast him out of heaven. I believe they understood why God chose not to allow him to suffer the inevitable results of sinning (whatever that means).

4. I do not believe the death of Jesus helped the loyal beings to understand what reaping what sinners have sown means. Instead, I believe it severed the last link of sympathy between them and Satan. It confirmed their suspicions that he was worthy of death, that his accusations regarding the law and love of God were unfounded. We get this picture from comparing everything written about it.

5. I do not fear God because I believe He is going to employ fire to punish and destroy sinners according to their sinfulness. It is not a misrepresentation of His character. It does not prevent me from knowing Him, from loving Him, and from wearing His yoke.

6. Yes, literal fire can burn angels. Unless, of course, God chooses to intercede like He did in the case of the three Hebrew worthies. Angels are physical beings, too. They are not immaterial things. Yes, they can live in our world unseen, but that doesn’t make them immaterial.

7. Rejoicing over the punishment and destruction of the wicked is righteous. I cannot explain how, but it is. Otherwise, holy angels would not rejoice over the punishment and destruction of the wicked during the seven last plagues. There is nothing sadistic about it. Angels were eager to destroy the miserable wretches that were torturing Jesus during His earthy trial and crucifixion. They will also be eager to inflict a double portion of the plagues upon the wicked. Obviously there is something righteous about it. Again, I cannot explain it, but it is so.

Tom, it appears you have overlooked the last three posts on the previous page of this thread. Are you planning to address the parts you left out?

Also, the quotes I posted regarding the consuming fire of God's glory make it clear it is the same fire that 1) punishes the wicked in duration and intensity according to their sinfulness, that 2) ultimately burns them up, and that 3) finally burns up the rubbish of the earth.

Do you agree?

If so, then what does it say about the glory of God being a consuming fire? Is it literal fire? Is it spiritual fire? Or, is it both?

PS - It may appear to some that this thread has gone off topic. But the death of Jesus and the death of the wicked in the lake of fire deals with the disposition and dissolution of sin. Whether or not blood defiles or cleanses depends on the disposition and dissolution of sin. How God eliminates sin has everything to do with the death of Jesus and the death of the wicked in the lake of fire.

I noticed that basically only the writings of EGW are being used to substantiate the thoughts of those posting here, however, seeing that the writings of EGW are the lesser light leading to the writings in the Bible which is the greater light, what Bible texts can we use to substantiate this as far as our thoughts and the writings of EGW goes?

Take notice that I placed this topic in the Bible Answers forum for a reason.

Treating the subject strictly from Scripture, if we go to Hebrews, which offers the most in depth explanation of this subject, we read:



This is Hebrews 10:1-24, NIV. Notice the conclusion, "et us draw near to God with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled to cleanse us from a guilty conscience."

This gets down to the nitty gritty. The problem of man is that sin has separated him from God. How does it do so? By impacting the mind. We see its effects clearly in Adam and Eve.

The temptation was to see God as not having our best interests at heart. God did not want us to eat from the forbidden tree because He didn't want us to be like Him, so ran the enemy's argument. He wanted to keep us down, in our place, and be able to Lord it over us. Satan completely misrepresented God's true character, which was demonstrated by Jesus Christ, who took up a towel to gird Himself, as a servant, to wash the dirty feet of His disciples, who, by all rights, should have been serving Him.

By deceiving us in regards to God's true character, Satan has enslaved us in sin. The result of sin is seen in Adam and Eve's actions to flee from God and then blame one another when confronted with what they had done. God was not condemning them, but their consciences did, causing them to shirk their responsibilities, blame one another, and flee from God.

Sin has caused all sorts of problems, leading men to seek for relief by drugs, thrills, and all sorts of things. It has made us basket cases. We need to be healed, so that our relationships with God and one another can be fixed.

How can our consciences be cleansed? By the blood of Jesus Christ, who opened a new and living way to the Father. In short, Jesus Christ has demonstrated the truth about God, and when we lay hold of that truth, then we can be healed. We can come to the Father in full assurance of faith, have our consciences cleaned, and hearts as well. We can be made whole.

Back to the question of if the blood defiles or cleanses, or both. Well, what was the problem that needed to be fixed? It was our relationship to God, shattered by a guilty conscience, and troubled by doubt. Where does the blood fit in? The blood represents the life of Jesus Christ, and His sacrifice, which testifies to us of acceptance by the Father, and reveals to us the truth about His lovely character. The blood cleanses us from sin as we lay hold of the truth about God's character and His love. Sorry to quote from EGW, but she states the idea I'm trying to express so well, I feel constrained to do so:



This work is represented by the sanctuary service. The blood reveals the height and depth of the love of God, and of His character, which, by beholding, we may be drawn back to God.

The story of the sanctuary is one of reconciliation.

If the blood represents the life of Jesus Christ, then it cleanse, and does not defile. If it represents our sins, then it defiles, and needs to be cleansed. There is not actual blood in the heavenly sanctuary, but the blood is symbolic. Symbolic of what? Symbolic of the the life of Jesus Christ, and the work described in the sanctuary is symbolic of the work of God to cleanse our consciences and reconcile us to Himself.

Daryl, please notice that many of the EGW quotes contain Bible texts. Who better than a prophetess to comment on Bible texts? My comments, and yours, are uninspired at best, right? The whole issue concerning whether or not blood defiles or cleanses or both pales in comparison with how God is dealing with the disposition and dissolution of sin and death, wouldn't you agree?

1. "For he hath made him to be sin for us." (2 Cor 5:21) What does it mean Jesus became sin?

2. "But now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself." (Heb 9:26) How does Jesus put away sin?

3. "God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh." (Rom 8:3) What is sinful flesh? How did Jesus condemn the sin in His flesh?

4. "For the wages of sin is death." (Rom 6:23) What is the relationship between sinning and dying?

5. "For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace." (Rom 6:14) In what sense are we free from the dominion of sin?

6. "Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me." (Rom 7:17) In what way is the sin that dwells in us guilty of doing that which we are not guilty of doing?

7. "For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing." (Rom 7:18) In what way is our flesh sinful?

8. "Fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them." (Rev 20:9) What is the nature of the fire that devours the unsaved in the lake of fire?

9. "And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death." (Rev 20:14) In what sense does death and the grave die in the lake of fire?

10. "But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death." (Rev 21:8) In what way is the second death different than the first death, especially if someone died the first death by fire?

11. "For the LORD thy God is a consuming fire, even a jealous God." (Deut 4:24) "Understand therefore this day, that the LORD thy God is he which goeth over before thee; as a consuming fire he shall destroy them, and he shall bring them down before thy face: so shalt thou drive them out, and destroy them quickly, as the LORD hath said unto thee." (Deut 9:3) "For our God is a consuming fire." (Heb 12:29) What is the nature of God's consuming fire? How is it different than the lake of fire? How is it related to the second death?

I am reposting this post:

PS - I'll be away on assignment until next week. Tom, I hope you get a chance to address the points I raised on page 4 and 5 of this thread. Thank you.

I looked at the previous page, and did come across one post I had not addressed, but only one. I’m addressing it here. If there are other points you wish to have addressed, either because I missed them and didn’t comment, or because my comment did not adequately address your point, please repost them (or, if I missed a long post, you can try to redirect me to it). Thanks.

1. That beings from “other worlds” chose not to rebel with Satan is evident from the fact they were not banished to earth with him.

I don’t know why you’re mentioning this. This was never in question.


2. That Satan tried to persuade them to rebel with him is evident from the quotes I posted in my last post. Their decision was final. No further temptations would have led them astray.

Nor this. Their decision wasn’t final. They could have changed their mind. The cross settled thing in the minds of all the unfallen beings.

3. That they were tested with a forbidden tree is evident from the same list of quotes. However, the quotes do not indicate whether or not Satan tried to deceive them at the forbidden tree.

Of course he did. He wants as many on his side as possible. The fact that he was allowed access at the tree implies, of course!, that he tempted them there.

4. Although they felt Satan was worthy of death, it is clear they did not understand the relationship between sinning and dying. They needed more evidence.

Evidence of what?

5. Had man successfully resisted Satan at the forbidden tree, he would have been made eternally secure. Satan would have had no one else to tempt. Watching the evil angels squabble among themselves would have served no purpose. The great controversy would have ended.

The questions Satan had raised would still have had to be dealt with. It wasn’t until the cross that the unfallen beings were secured. You should be aware of this, as the quotes have been presented in past conversations. If not, I can reproduce the quotes. The opening paragraphs of „It is Finished“ is one place that speaks of this.

6. "I'm also not sure where you are getting the idea that the beings from other worlds chose not to eat of the forbidden tree long before Lucifer was created." I never said such a thing.

I meant to write "long before Lucifer fell"

Sin (as an idea, as a concept) will exist throughout eternity. Sinning, however, will not happen again.

Sin will cease to exist. This is the clear teaching of inspiration, and, indeed, is what the Great Controversy is all about; to bring an end to sin. Here is one text which states this truth (that sin will cease to exist).



A sometimes frustrating circumstance in dialogging with you is your reluctance to admit to being in error. (Instead, you may make claims that the words, as you use them, do not mean the same thing as words mean when used by others.)

The statement "sin and sinners are no more" means that sin no longer exists.

Seeing that the writings of EGW are a lesser light leading to the greater light, can this EGW quote be backed by a Bible reference?

She's explaining the sanctuary service, so Bible texts which deal with the sanctuary service could be cited.

Is there a Bible text about the blood being transferred as stated in that EGW quote, again quoted below?

If so, then give me a Bible answer.

Look at Hebrews.

What Ellen White wrote, that you quoted, would have been obvious to anyone familiar with the Hebrew customs. She was simply saying that the heavenly sanctuary was the anti-type to the type, which was the earthly sanctuary, which the Hebrews already knew. There was no need for Scripture to state what she wrote, since that was already obvious to them.

So are you saying there isn't any actual specific Bible text to back up that the blood is transferred, "in figure, to the earthly sanctuary"?

That's what the Bible text means, Daryl! It's like, for example, the Bible says, "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life." and Ellen White writes, "Man was deceived; his mind was darkened by Satan's sophistry. The height and depth of the love of God he did not know. For him there was hope in a knowledge of God's love. By beholding His character he might be drawn back to God." and you ask, "Is there any text in the Bible that says this" and one answers, "Yes, there's John 3:16". One could say, "but it doesn't specifically say that," however, that's the meaning of the text.

Similarly, regarding the sanctuary service, Ellen White is simply explaining the meaning of the text. People who are familiar with the Hebrew culture (which, of course, any of those who were alive when the Scripture texts about the sanctuary were written would be) would understand the meaning of the text. But now we live in a different time and culture, and are far removed from the Hebrew culture and time in which the sanctuary service was as natural a metaphor as cars or televisions would be for us today. So God sends a prophet to explain what the texts mean, a lesser light to point to the greater light. But the meaning of the texts was always there in the text.

You can't expect that a book written thousands of years ago would use the same language and means to explain things as 19th century English. So if your question is, "Is there some Bible text that uses the same sentence construction and words as a 19th century author writing in a Western language did" then the answer is "No, of course not." But if you're wondering where to find the same meaning of what Ellen White wrote, the answer is, look at the texts which speak of that which Ellen White is describing, because what she is explaining is implicit in those texts (and actually explicit for those to whom these things were written).

Are you asking about the blood, or sin? If you want texts showing blood sprinkled everywhere, they're in Leviticus.

But the EGW quote is talking about sin being transferred.

Actually, I am looking for a Bible text to show that, as EGW basically said, that the sin of the person/people through the blood of the sacrifice was transferred, in figure, to the earthly sanctuary.

If a direct Bible text can't be found, then an implicit Bible text will be second best.

Lev. 16

16 and he shall make atonement for the Holy Place, because of the uncleanness of the children of Israel, and because of their transgressions, even all their sins; and so he shall do for the Tent of Meeting, that dwells with them in the midst of their uncleanness.

18 He shall go out to the altar that is before Yahweh and make atonement for it, and shall take some of the bull's blood, and some of the goat's blood, and put it around on the horns of the altar.

19 He shall sprinkle some of the blood on it with his finger seven times, and cleanse it, and make it holy from the uncleanness of the children of Israel.

20 When he has made an end of atoning for the Holy Place, the Tent of Meeting, and the altar, he shall present the live goat.

33 Then he shall make atonement for the Holy Sanctuary; and he shall make atonement for the Tent of Meeting and for the altar; and he shall make atonement for the priests and for all the people of the assembly.


Atonement was made not only for the priests and the people, but also for the sanctuary, which was unclean because of the sins of the people. The fact that it was necessary to make atonement for the most holy place, for the holy place and for the altar shows that the sins of the people had been symbolically transferred to them. And how could this have been done except by the blood of the sin offerings?

I have moved the remainer of the off-topic posts here into a new topic named The Concept of Sin, of Punishment, Etc.

People at the Good News Unlimited organization accuse the church of many contradictions about the IJ, one of them having to do with blood as both a purifying and defiling agent. I’ve quoted the main objections they present to the IJ and my opinion about these objections.


It’s not that the blood of one service defiles while the blood of the other cleanses. In both cases, the blood cleanses. In the first case, the blood cleanses the sinner. Of course, in the process of cleansing the sinner from his sins, there is a temporary defilement of the sanctuary because of the record of these sins. In the second case, the blood cleanses definitively from sin both the sinner and the sanctuary, fulfilling the promise of the New Covenant: "No more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’ for they all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the LORD. For I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more" (Jeremiah 31:34).


It’s not “our SDA trandition” which teaches this, but the sanctuary service, which shows that sin did not simply disappear or cease to exist when the sinner was forgiven, but remained in the sanctuary until the day of atonement.


It’s not “our tradition” which affirms this, but the Bible.

"But I say to you that for every idle word men may speak, they will give account of it in the day of judgment. For by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned"
(Matt. 12:36, 37).

“But in accordance with your hardness and your impenitent heart you are treasuring up for yourself wrath in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, who ‘ will render to each one according to his deeds.’ ... For as many as have sinned without law will also perish without law, and as many as have sinned in the law will be judged by the law (for not the hearers of the law are just in the sight of God, but the doers of the law will be justified; ... in the day when God will judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel” (Rom. 2:5-16).


This is by no means true. Either the blood of the offering was brought inside the holy place, or the priest ate it and bore the guilt of the sinner. Notice that he bore the guilt of the sinner after the sinner had presented the sin offering, not at the moment the sinner committed the sin. Therefore, the sanctuary was defiled when the sinner confessed his sin, not when he committed it.

"Why have you not eaten the sin offering in a holy place, since it is most holy, and God has given it to you to bear the guilt of the congregation, to make atonement for them before the LORD? See! Its blood was not brought inside the holy place; indeed you should have eaten it in a holy place, as I commanded" (Lev. 10:17,18).

“Then the LORD said to Aaron: ‘You and your sons and your father’s house with you shall bear the iniquity related to the sanctuary, and you and your sons with you shall bear the iniquity associated with your priesthood’” (Num. 18:1).


Although forgiveness leaves us under no condemnation, the Bible clearly teaches that it may be cancelled if we reject Christ. Matt. 18:23-35. That’s why the registry of our sins must remain until we die or until probation closes.


It seems to me that in the parable of Matt. 22, the event described cannot represent Christ’s coming, for it is the King who comes in to see the guests before the wedding of his son.


Why should this happen? I have to think about the IJ as much as I have to think about my death - of course if I die today I will be judged today. But I have nothing to worry about my death - or the IJ - if I'm in a saving relationship with Christ. As to the judgment of the living, it's my conviction it will occur at the sealing time. At this time, everybody will definitively have chosen their side in the great controversy and won't desire to change sides - so the judgment is just a ratification of each person's choice.

Something to bear in mind is that the cleansing of the sanctuary is concerned with the cleansing of human beings. Here's are a couple of statements from E. J. Waggoner:





The important thing is not the cleansing of a building, but of a people. This work is accomplished by means of the Gospel.

First of all, let me note that Daryl started this thread to address some questions I was having. I appreciate him doing that. He then pointed me this direction.

Now as to the defilement of the sanctuary, notice the following texts:

LEV 20:1 The LORD said to Moses, 2 "Say to the Israelites: `Any Israelite or any alien living in Israel who gives any of his children to Molech must be put to death. The people of the community are to stone him. 3 I will set my face against that man and I will cut him off from his people; for by giving his children to Molech, he has defiled my sanctuary and profaned my holy name.


The text says that he defiled the sanctuary by his actions. There was no sacrifice because the man paid for his own sin by death.

NU 19:11 "Whoever touches the dead body of anyone will be unclean for seven days. 12 He must purify himself with the water on the third day and on the seventh day; then he will be clean. But if he does not purify himself on the third and seventh days, he will not be clean. 13 Whoever touches the dead body of anyone and fails to purify himself defiles the LORD's tabernacle. That person must be cut off from Israel. Because the water of cleansing has not been sprinkled on him, he is unclean; his uncleanness remains on him.

The defiling happens through ceremonial uncleanness.


EZE 5:8 "Therefore this is what the Sovereign LORD says: I myself am against you, Jerusalem, and I will inflict punishment on you in the sight of the nations. 9 Because of all your detestable idols, I will do to you what I have never done before and will never do again. 1011 Therefore as surely as I live, declares the Sovereign LORD, because you have defiled my sanctuary with all your vile images and detestable practices, I myself will withdraw my favor; I will not look on you with pity or spare you. 12 A third of your people will die of the plague or perish by famine inside you; a third will fall by the sword outside your walls; and a third I will scatter to the winds and pursue with drawn sword. Therefore in your midst fathers will eat their children, and children will eat their fathers. I will inflict punishment on you and will scatter all your survivors to the winds.

He says plainly He will not spare them. Therefore, how can it be transfer of sin to the temple in this case, when He is not sparing them from their sins? Yet the temple is still defiled, by the act of idolatry.


MAL 2:11 Judah has broken faith. A detestable thing has been committed in Israel and in Jerusalem: Judah has desecrated the sanctuary the LORD loves, by marrying the daughter of a foreign god. 12 As for the man who does this, whoever he may be, may the LORD cut him off from the tents of Jacob--even though he brings offerings to the LORD Almighty.

Here offering will not be accepted. The man is to be cut off. The temple is ALREADY defiled, and he will be cut off even if he eventually tries to offer sacrifice.

Clearly it is not the sacrifice that defiles.

Now, about the sin offering, notice this text:

LEV 6:24 The LORD said to Moses, 25 "Say to Aaron and his sons: `These are the regulations for the sin offering: The sin offering is to be slaughtered before the LORD in the place the burnt offering is slaughtered; it is most holy. 26 The priest who offers it shall eat it; it is to be eaten in a holy place, in the courtyard of the Tent of Meeting. 27 Whatever touches any of the flesh will become holy, and if any of the blood is spattered on a garment, you must wash it in a holy place. 28 The clay pot the meat is cooked in must be broken; but if it is cooked in a bronze pot, the pot is to be scoured and rinsed with water. 29 Any male in a priest's family may eat it; it is most holy. 30 But any sin offering whose blood is brought into the Tent of Meeting to make atonement in the Holy Place must not be eaten; it must be burned.


A. Anything the sin offering touched, any person, etc. became holy--not defiled--holy.

B. The community daily offering, and the blood taken from it ATONED in the holy place, not defiled.

There is no defilement. There is atonement and making holy.

We have emphasized a “two-phase” ministry. But there is no two-phase ministry. There is the usual ministry and a number of special feasts. The high point of the sacrificial imagery was no doubt the day of atonement. But it pointed to the same realities as the other—cleansing. The daily emphasized forgiveness, atonement, cleansing. The yearly emphasized forgiveness, atonement, cleansing.
In each case the person could avail themselves of it or not.

The day of atonement also relates to the final putting away of sin. I have no issue with that. But this is at the final judgment where sin is ACTUALLY put away. More on that to come.


When we come to Hebrews there is ONE sacrifice. It fulfills the various sacrifices in the old system, including that on the day of atonement. More on that to come as well.

Now, to address the two texts you offered in support of a transfer:


Num 18:1 And the LORD said unto Aaron, Thou and thy sons and thy father's house with thee shall bear the iniquity of the sanctuary: and thou and thy sons with thee shall bear the iniquity of your priesthood.

This is speaking of Aaron’s responsibility as high priest, to keep defilement from the sanctuary. They would bear the iniquity of defilement. They were to be responsible for what happened there. We see this later played out with Aaron’s sons, and later Eli’s. Notice the rest of the context:



Num 18:2 And thy brethren also of the tribe of Levi, the tribe of thy father, bring thou with thee, that they may be joined unto thee, and minister unto thee: but thou and thy sons with thee shall minister before the tabernacle of witness.
Num 18:3 And they shall keep thy charge, and the charge of all the tabernacle: only they shall not come nigh the vessels of the sanctuary and the altar, that neither they, nor ye also, die.
Num 18:4 And they shall be joined unto thee, and keep the charge of the tabernacle of the congregation, for all the service of the tabernacle: and a stranger shall not come nigh unto you.
Num 18:5 And ye shall keep the charge of the sanctuary, and the charge of the altar: that there be no wrath any more upon the children of Israel.


Later in the passage:


Num 18:28 Thus ye also shall offer an heave offering unto the LORD of all your tithes, which ye receive of the children of Israel; and ye shall give thereof the LORD'S heave offering to Aaron the priest.
Num 18:29 Out of all your gifts ye shall offer every heave offering of the LORD, of all the best thereof, even the hallowed part thereof out of it.
Num 18:30 Therefore thou shalt say unto them, When ye have heaved the best thereof from it, then it shall be counted unto the Levites as the increase of the threshingfloor, and as the increase of the winepress.
Num 18:31 And ye shall eat it in every place, ye and your households: for it is your reward for your service in the tabernacle of the congregation.
Num 18:32 And ye shall bear no sin by reason of it, when ye have heaved from it the best of it: neither shall ye pollute the holy things of the children of Israel, lest ye die.



The priest was to be in charge of what happened in the temple to make sure that no defilement occurred through improper handling.

The context does not support that this was about bearing the sins of the people through sacrifice.

As to the second verse:


"Why have you not eaten the sin offering in a holy place, since it is most holy, and God has given it to you to bear the guilt of the congregation, to make atonement for them before the LORD? See! Its blood was not brought inside the holy place; indeed you should have eaten it in a holy place, as I commanded" (Lev. 10:17,18).


The word here translated “bear” is referring to forgiveness, not merely transfer or carrying. The Daniel and Revelation Committee Series itself notes its use in other texts. Here are some of the ones it is found in:


Exo 34:7 keeping steadfast love for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, but who will by no means clear the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children and the children's children, to the third and the fourth generation."

Gen 50:17 'Say to Joseph, Please forgive the transgression of your brothers and their sin, because they did evil to you.'

Psa 32:5 I acknowledged my sin to you, and I did not cover my iniquity; I said, "I will confess my transgressions to the LORD," and you forgave the iniquity of my sin. Selah.

Psa 85:2 You forgave the iniquity of your people; you covered all their sin. Selah.

Hos 14:2 Take with you words and return to the LORD; say to him, "Take away all iniquity; accept what is good, and we will pay with bulls the vows of our lips.

Mic 7:18 Who is a God like you, pardoning iniquity and passing over transgression for the remnant of his inheritance? He does not retain his anger forever, because he delights in steadfast love.



The word means to forgive iniquity, to pardon, to take away. This usage of the term appears to have come from the idea of bearing a wrong, rather than retaliating or demanding redress, or even bearing it away into oblivion.

If we look at usage of this word we could therefore translate it like this:


"Why have you not eaten the sin offering in a holy place, since it is most holy, and God has given it to you to forgive the guilt of the congregation, to make atonement for them before the LORD? See! Its blood was not brought inside the holy place; indeed you should have eaten it in a holy place, as I commanded" (Lev. 10:17,18).


Notice how these versions handled it:


(NASB) Leviticus 10:17 "Why did you not eat the sin offering at the holy place? For it is most holy, and He gave it to you to bear away the guilt of the congregation, to make atonement for them before the LORD.

(NRSV) Leviticus 10:17 "Why did you not eat the sin offering in the sacred area? For it is most holy, and God has given it to you that you may remove the guilt of the congregation, to make atonement on their behalf before the Lord.

(NIV)Leviticus 10: 17 "Why didn't you eat the sin offering in the sanctuary area? It is most holy; it was given to you to take away the guilt of the community by making atonement for them before the LORD.

(HSCB) Leviticus 10:17 "Why didn't you eat the sin offering in the sanctuary area? For it is especially holy, and He has assigned it to you to take away the guilt of the community and make atonement for them before the LORD.

(NLT) Leviticus 10:17 “Why didn’t you eat the sin offering in the sacred area?” he demanded. “It is a holy offering! The LORD has given it to you to remove the guilt of the community and to purify the people, making them right with the LORD.

(GNT) Leviticus 10:17 Why didn't you eat the sin offering in a sacred place? It is very holy, and the LORD has given it to you in order to take away the sin of the community.

(CEV) Leviticus 10:17 "Why didn't you eat the meat from this sacrifice in an acceptable place? It is very holy, and the LORD has given you this sacrifice to remove Israel's sin and guilt.


From the literal NASB and NRSV to the more interpretive CEV, etc. they recognize the usual meaning of the word.

Now the reason the priests hadn’t eaten it is related to your first text--they were unclean and would have defiled the temple.

I should also note that I have no issue with a record in the judgment. My issue is that we say the daily was for transfer. It was not. It was for forgiveness and atonement. The yearly was another symbol of the SAME sacrifice of Christ, that also atoned and forgave.

Jesus offered Himself once and presented the offering once and then sat down, completing the necessary sacrifice for sin. It is still up to the individual to accept that, just as the priest made atonement and the people either afflicted themselves and looked for atonement, or did not. The judgment will bear out who is in the book of life or not. But we see that judgment in the Great White Throne judgment scene, where these things are particularly referred to, and after which sin is completely dealt with.



I will discuss that more in the next post.

Here is my take on the related section, Hebrews 9 and 10.


Heb 9:1 Now even the first covenant had regulations for worship and an earthly place of holiness. 2 For a tent was prepared, the first section, in which were the lampstand and the table and the bread of the Presence. It is called the Holy Place. 3 Behind the second curtain was a second section called the Most Holy Place,
4 having the golden altar of incense and the ark of the covenant covered on all sides with gold, in which was a golden urn holding the manna, and Aaron's staff that budded, and the tablets of the covenant. 5 Above it were the cherubim of glory overshadowing the mercy seat. Of these things we cannot now speak in detail. 6 These preparations having thus been made, the priests go regularly into the first section, performing their ritual duties, 7 but into the second only the high priest goes, and he but once a year, and not without taking blood, which he offers for himself and for the unintentional sins of the people.


The author begins with a review of the sanctuary service noting that only once per year did the High Priest go into the most holy.

This sets the stage for the whole comparison in the following verses. The Day of Atonement was the highpoint of the Jewish typology. The author’s whole thrust throughout the book is that Jesus is superior to Moses, to angels, His covenant is superior, He is the superior High Priest (which he is enlarging on now), and He is the superior sacrifice. He is superior in every way, and those who are considering falling away from Him, in this case, likely back to Judaism, in the face of persecution, are in great danger.

The fact that he raises this high point of the typology indicates that he is going to relate this too to Jesus’ work, showing how Jesus is better. And indeed, the major theme of these chapters is that Christ did what the old system could not do, truly forgiving and giving direct access, which they did not have


Heb 9:11 But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things that have come, then through the greater and more perfect tent (not made with hands, that is, not of this creation) 12 he entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption. 13 For if the sprinkling of defiled persons with the blood of goats and bulls and with the ashes of a heifer sanctifies for the purification of the flesh, 14 how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our conscience from dead works to serve the living God.

It mentions that Jesus is the High Priest, and entered in by means of His own blood, not that of goats and calves. The comparison is striking. The High Priest went in every year and offered things that could not really cleanse. Jesus entered in once for all time with His own blood and bought eternal redemption.

The sprinkling of defiled persons, and ashes of a heifer is a reference to Numbers 19 and the procedure of cleansing after touching a dead body, etc. Jesus is seen as fulfilling this.

Exodus 24 relates the initial covenant agreement with the people, which included the blood of bulls. It also blends this with the dedication of the sanctuary.

Heb 9:15 Therefore he is the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance, since a death has occurred that redeems them from the transgressions committed under the first covenant. 16 For where a will is involved, the death of the one who made it must be established. 17 For a will takes effect only at death, since it is not in force as long as the one who made it is alive. 18 Therefore not even the first covenant was inaugurated without blood. 19 For when every commandment of the law had been declared by Moses to all the people, he took the blood of calves and goats, with water and scarlet wool and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people, 20 saying, "This is the blood of the covenant that God commanded for you." 21 And in the same way he sprinkled with the blood both the tent and all the vessels used in worship. 22 Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins. 23 Thus it was necessary for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these rites, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.


The new covenant was ratified by the blood of Christ. Just as the first covenant involved blood so this one did too. Here everything is sprinkled. This seems to be a reference to the services of the inauguration of the covenant and the dedication of the temple.

Some modern Adventist scholars have recognized the importance of this and state that Jesus went into the MHP to dedicate. This inauguration is then used to reconcile the Most Holy Place references with the traditional view that the MHP ministry did not start until 1844, noting that Christ inaugurated and then went back to the HP ministry.

Now if Christ fulfilled the dedication that included entering the most holy place as Moses anointed all of the vessels.


Lev 8:10 Then Moses took the anointing oil and anointed the tabernacle and all that was in it, and consecrated them.


Therefore Davidson, Hasel, etc. take the view of the inauguration, admitting that Christ went into the Most Holy Place. There is no way to inaugurate it all and fulfill the type if not. They note that this entry to dedicate is the reason for the MHP language in Hebrews, but does not conflict with the Adventists view of a later ministration.

But it appears to me that this is a modification of the traditional view that shows Jesus entering the MHP only at 1844.

EGW for her part notes the inauguration in the Acts of the Apostles:


"It is expedient for you that I go away," Christ had said to His disciples; "for If I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send Him unto you." "When He, the Spirit of truth, is come, He will guide you into all truth: for He shall not speak of Himself; but whatsoever He shall hear, that shall He speak: and He will show you things to come." John 16:7, 13. Christ's ascension to heaven was the signal that His followers were to receive the promised blessing. For this they were to wait before they entered upon their work. When Christ passed within the heavenly gates, He was enthroned amidst the adoration of the angels. As soon as this ceremony was completed, the Holy Spirit descended upon the disciples in rich currents, and Christ was indeed glorified, even with the glory which He had with the Father from all eternity. The Pentecostal outpouring was Heaven's communication that the Redeemer's inauguration was accomplished. According to His promise He had sent the Holy Spirit from heaven to His followers as a token that He had, as priest and king, received all authority in heaven and on earth, and was the Anointed One over His people. {AA 38.3}


However, she makes no reference to the Most Holy Place that I have seen, and notes in another place that the Father and Son’s thrones were located in the HP until 1844 when they moved into the MHP.

The Fathers person I could not behold for a cloud of glorious light covered him. I asked Jesus if his Father had a form like himself; He said he had, but I could not behold it; for, said he, if you should for once see the glory of his person, you would cease to exist. Before the throne was the Advent people, the Church, and the world. I saw a company bowed down before the throne, deeply interested while most of them stood up disinterested and careless. Those who were bowed before the throne would offer up their prayers and look to Jesus, then he would look to his Father and appeared to be pleading with him. Then a light came from the Father to his Son and from him to the praying company. Then I saw an exceeding bright light come from the Father to the Son and from the Son it waved over the people before the throne. But few would receive this great light. Many came out from under it and immediately resisted it. Others were careless and did not cherish the light and it moved off from them. Some cherished it and went and bowed down before the throne with the little praying company. This company all received the light, and rejoiced in it as their countenances shone with its glory. Then I saw the Father rise from the throne and in a flaming chariot go into the Holy of Holies within the vail, and did sit. There I saw thrones which I had not seen before. Then Jesus rose up from the throne, and most of those who were bowed down rose up with him. And I did not see one ray of light pass from Jesus to the careless multitude after he rose up, and they were left in perfect darkness. Those who rose up when Jesus did, kept their eyes fixed on him as he left the throne, and led them out a little way, then he raised his right arm and we heard his lovely voice saying, wait ye, I am going to my Father to receive the Kingdom. Keep your garments spotless and in a little while I will return from the wedding, and receive you to myself. And I saw a cloudy chariot with wheels like flaming fire. Angels were all about the chariot as it came where Jesus was; he stepped into it and was borne to the Holiest where the Father sat. Then I beheld Jesus as he was before the Father a great High Priest.





In other statements the pioneers indicate that Jesus did not enter the MHP until 1844.


Sabbath, March 24th, 1849, we had a sweet, and very interesting meeting with the Brethren at Topsham, Me. The Holy Ghost was poured out upon us, and I was taken off in the Spirit to the City of the living God. There I was shown that the commandments of God, and the testimony of Jesus Christ, relating to the shut door, could not be separated, and that the time for the commandments of God to shine out, with all their importance, and for God's people to be tried on the Sabbath truth, was when the door was opened in the Most Holy Place of the Heavenly Sanctuary, where the Ark is, containing the ten commandments. This door was not opened, until the mediation of Jesus was finished in the Holy Place of the Sanctuary in 1844. Then, Jesus rose up, and shut the door in the Holy Place, and opened the door in the Most Holy, and passed within the second vail, where he now stands by the Ark; and where the faith of Israel now reaches. {RH, August 1, 1849 par. 2}

The door was not opened until 1844, which if taken in the literal language used, referring to place, is incompatible with an inauguration in the MHP which the scholars indicate.


The enemies of the present truth have been trying to open the door of the holy place, that Jesus has shut, and to close the door of the most holy place, which He opened in 1844, where the ark is, containing the two tables of stone on which are written the ten commandments by the finger of Jehovah. {EW 43.1}


Here she describes it in terms of the open and shut doors. It was again not until 1844 that He entered, which again would be incompatible with the dedication pictured in Hebrews.

Ellen White is also in accord with the statement of Hiram Edson in his account of the cornfield vision where the idea was first raised:


“Heaven seemed open to my view, and I saw distinctly and clearly, that instead of our High Priest coming out of the Most Holy of the heavenly sanctuary to come to this earth on the tenth day of the seventh month, at the end of the 2300 days, that he for the first time entered on that day the second apartment of that sanctuary; and that he had a work to perform in the Most Holy before coming to this earth.


Uriah Smith
http://www.adventistarchives.org/doc...-07/index.djvu


We are now prepared for the inquiry, Has the
cleansing of the Sanctuary commenced'?. It was told
Daniel,, "Unto two" thousand and three hundred days
then shall ,the Sanctuary be cleansed." Clearly
enough those days are in the past. Unless: there-
fore the words of the angel have failed, a work has
commenced called the cleansing of the Sanctuary
but there is no work either in the type or out of the
type, to which this expression ever has been, or ever
can be, applied, except to the entrance of the high
priest into the Most Holy place, and his ministration
while there. …
God's people are permitted to look
by an eye of faith, into the inner apartment of the
true Tabernacle : they there behold the ark of God,
and their attention is called at once to the law con-
tained within it ; and the fact that there is now a spe-
cial movement taking place in regard to that violated
law, is proof that the second apartment of the Sanc-
tuary has been opened, and the ark of the testament
is seen.


Just as EGW does Smith relates the moving of Jesus into the Most Holy place to the opening of a door which had previously been closed.

Andross, in replying to Ballenger, seems to be the first one who used an inauguration theory of Christ going into the MHP then coming out again.


So I have a hard time reconciling the pioneers very literal language of location with the modern Adventist scholar’s assertions. But I also find that scholars to not go completely with the text, as will be seen below. I don’t find a convincing argument for a second ministry of cleansing after 1844.


24 For Christ has entered, not into holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true things, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf. 25 Nor was it to offer himself repeatedly, as the high priest enters the holy places every year with blood not his own, 26 for then he would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.

Now we begin to see clear day of atonement references:

A. Verse 25 makes it plain that Jesus paralleled and exceeded the day of atonement ritual. Once a year the High Priest would go into the holy places with blood not his own. But Christ did it once, going into God’s presence. This reference to the every year ministry is an allusion back to the first verses, outlining that this happened on the day of atonement. The dedication is not in view here because it was carried out not by the high priest but by Moses, (the leader of the people, Jesus is both Priest and King), and it was not done every year.

It is the High Priest who Jesus is contrasted with, who had this one very distinct role, emphasized at the beginning of the chapter in the description of the earthly service. He is contrasted with the yearly work, year after year, of the High priest. Therefore it seems inescapable that these are day of atonement imagery.

B. He appeared once at the end of the ages to put away sin. There is no reference to applying of blood for atonement later.

C. He appeared in God’s presence. In the earthly type God made it clear where His presence was most completely manifested, though various areas were said to be “before Him”:


Exo 25:21 And you shall put the mercy seat on the top of the ark, and in the ark you shall put the testimony that I shall give you. 22 There I will meet with you, and from above the mercy seat, from between the two cherubim that are on the ark of the testimony, I will speak with you about all that I will give you in commandment for the people of Israel.

Lev 16:2 and the LORD said to Moses, "Tell Aaron your brother not to come at any time into the Holy Place inside the veil, before the mercy seat that is on the ark, so that he may not die. For I will appear in the cloud over the mercy seat.

Num 7:89 And when Moses went into the tent of meeting to speak with the LORD, he heard the voice speaking to him from above the mercy seat that was on the ark of the testimony, from between the two cherubim; and it spoke to him.


Note also this text from Hebrews expressing a similar note:


Heb 4:14 Since then we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus, the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession. 15 For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin. 16 Let us then with confidence draw near to the throne of grace, that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need.

Here we see reference again to the High Priest and we may approach him at the throne of grace, which certainly seems a parallel idea to the mercy seat, where God said He would meet with them.


There is also no idea expressed of a later cleansing ministry. In fact we have another text in Hebrews that relates to Christ’s Priestly ministry that also references cleansing as a past work accomplished at the ascension:


Heb 1:3 He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making purification (καθαρισμὸν ποιησάμενος, having made cleansing) for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high.

Here we see the cleansing for sins offered in the past tense. This is the fulfillment of the ministration of blood in the day of atonement, as well as all the other sacrifices. There is no indication of a later application of the same blood.


Heb 10:1 For since the law has but a shadow of the good things to come instead of the true form of these realities, it can never, by the same sacrifices that are continually offered every year, make perfect those who draw near. 2 Otherwise, would they not have ceased to be offered, since the worshipers, having once been cleansed, would no longer have any consciousness of sin? 3 But in these sacrifices there is a reminder of sin every year. 4 For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins

Here again we have reference to the yearly sacrifices of blood and goats, another reference to the day of atonement. The old service was an annual reminder of sin, but Christ’s actually took away sin.

Here is a quote from William Johnsson in the Daniel and Revelation committee work in his article "Day of Atonement Allusions". He lists 9:24, etc. as a passage among those that clearly allude to the day of atonement.

The context clearly points to a Day of Atonement allusion (high priest...yearly...blood [cf. 9:7]


Here he is again on 10:1-4

The specifications of "year after year" and "blood of bulls and goats" again indicate a Day of Atonement setting.

He then lists 8 other possible allusions which might point to the Day of Atonement.

Here is Alwyn Salom in his appendix article in the Daniel and Revelation committee series verse 12:

The characteristic service of the Day of Atonement here referred to (cf. vs 7), was located in the inner compartment of the earthly sanctuary.

And on 24:

The reference in the context of the Day of Atonement service of the earthly high priest is not to the outer compartment of the sanctuary.


These do not seem to make sense with the statements of the pioneers, including Mrs. White, and clearly point to some fulfillment of the day of atonement imagery, as foreshadowed by the author’s description of the earthly.


Heb 10:11 And every priest stands daily at his service, offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. 12 But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God,
13 waiting from that time until his enemies should be made a footstool for his feet. 14 For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.

Jesus offered for all time one sacrifice and then sat down at the right hand of God. His work of applying the blood was done. He now intercedes from God's right hand in our behalf. It is contrasted with the earthly priests who can never take away sins. The earthly priest never sat down because his work never was finished. But Christ’s work is finished. This does not speak of another ministry to begin in 1844.

Jesus by one sacrifice perfected those who are being sanctified.

It should be noted that we now have a reference to the daily, with every priest, not just the High Priest. So now we have had reference to the red heifer, the inauguration of covenant, the dedication of the temple, the yearly apex of the day of atonement with the high priest, yearly, blood of bulls and goats entering with blood not his own. All of the sacrifices are summed up here. Jesus offered for all time one sacrifice. He ministered it once, then sat down.

Johnsson reconciles the day of atonement allusions by saying that the focus in Hebrews is on the sacrifice, not the details of the heavenly ministry. The sacrifice was for all the rites, including the day of atonement, but the details of the fulfillment are not spelled out.

However, this misses the point that

a. Hebrews speaks not only of the sacrifice but the offering of it once. He then sat down. He was finished with the ministration.
b. Direct access is given to the worshipper which was not possible before under the old system except once per year by the high priest. This is now open to all. This shows a transcending of the day of atonement service, not just a reference to the sacrifice.


The issue of whether the heavenly sanctuary has two apartments at all is another question asked by Johnsson. No specific reference is made to two compartments in the heavenly sanctuary in Hebrews, and in fact it seems plain to me that there are not two compartments, but this again is a contrast.

While we emphasize the type and its fulfillment the whole text, like the rest of Hebrews, is actually a contrast. Just as Jesus was better than Moses and better than angels His ministration is better.

The old High Priest would die and needed to be replaced as we learned in an earlier chapter. But Jesus had an indestructible life. The old High Priest had to be from the tribe of Levi. But Jesus was from Judah, after the order of Melchizedek--He was Priest and King. In the old service the High Priest went through the same cycle every year entering only once per year (limited access), only with blood not his own, only with incense to shield him, and with everything perfect or he would be destroyed. But this High Priest entered not with blood of bulls and goats, and not over and over, but once, for all with his own blood. He did not enter only once and then withdraw quickly to repeat it the next year but sat down in God’s presence and has made a new way for us to have direct access to God . That was the very thing they did not have in the old system. Only the High Priest had access. But now we can come boldly before the throne of grace through the new and living way opened for us.


Just as the above shows that the fulfillment often went beyond or even contrasted with the type, so this question over whether there are two apartments seems to be a contrast.

The earthly is spelled out in terms of a two apartment sanctuary in the beginning of the chapter. But the limited access of the old sanctuary is not what is pictured in the heavently sanctuary. Instead we see that it is heaven itself:


Heb 9:24 For Christ has entered, not into holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true things, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf.


Here it emphasizes that Christ entered heaven itself to appear in the presence of God. Heaven is heaven and it is not divided into two compartments. That was an illustration. But the heavenly reality is not a two apartment building but heaven itself in God's presence. Christ entered there for us to present His sacrifice before God. We appear to have made a mistake in interpreting the fulfillment in light of the type. The book of Hebrews shows over and over again how the type was not the reality. The reality far transcends the type. Since the NT indicates that heaven itself is the real sanctuary we should not read a two compartment sanctuary back in, just as we don’t insist that Jesus be of the tribe of Levi when the NT says otherwise.

Related to whether there are two compartments in the heavenly sanctuary is the discussion of the term τα αγια.

In the Daniel and Revelation committee they note that the best translation is of ta hagia is simply sanctuary:


The committee believes that ta hagia should be regarded as a general term that should be translated in most instances as “sanctuary” unless the context clearly indicates otherwise (such as in chapter 9:2, 3).


Jesus entered into the heavenly sanctuary which is heaven itself.There is no indication of a holy and holy of holies in heaven.

Another question relates to the significance of Jesus being seated and interceding for us. Having made the sacrifice we see that Jesus is now pictured as seated at God’s right hand where He intercedes. We often picture Jesus interceding as High Priest, doing his work in the sanctuary, but this is not the theme I see in the Scriptures. He intercedes for us from the throne, having sat down. He is still High Priest, but He has completed the offering and presentation of it.

Note the following Scriptures which show Christ interceding from the right hand of God, having sat down.


Rom 8:34 Who is to condemn? Christ Jesus is the one who died--more than that, who was raised--who is at the right hand of God, who indeed is interceding for us.

Act 2:33 Being therefore exalted at the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured out this that you yourselves are seeing and hearing.

Col 3:1 If then you have been raised with Christ, seek the things that are above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God.

Heb 10:12 But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God

1Pe 3:22 who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers having been subjected to him.

It does show him standing up for Stephen, but still at God's right hand.


Act 7:55 But he, full of the Holy Spirit, gazed into heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God.
Act 7:56 And he said, "Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God."




While it is also, undoubtedly, a symbol of Jesus’ kingly authority to be seated on the throne, it is applied in Hebrews as a contrast with the High Priest who did not sit down but continued on his futile round of duties continually.

The sitting down, illustrates His finished work. He now is waiting for His enemies to be made His footstool, and is reigning with God, according to Hebrews, 10:12-14

If the sacrifice is made, and cleansing happened, and He is now waiting to exit the sanctuary and judge the world, then where would there be room for another ministration in 1844?


Heb 10:16 "This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my laws on their hearts, and write them on their minds,"
Heb 10:17 then he adds, "I will remember their sins and their lawless deeds no more."
Heb 10:18 Where there is forgiveness of these, there is no longer any offering for sin.
Heb 10:19 Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the holy places by the blood of Jesus, 20 by the new and living way that he opened for us through the curtain, that is, through his flesh, 21 and since we have a great priest over the house of God, 22 let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water. 23 Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for he who promised is faithful.


There is a new and living way to enter the holy places by the blood of Christ and we have access to the great Priest.

This idea of a completed offering of the sacrifice is not in accord with Adventist teaching that an additional ministration started in 1844.

But the day of atonement does not seem to point to a pre-advent judgment, as Hebrews says that Jesus has already offered the sacrifice, and presented it (fulfilling the first part of the day of atonement ritual) and now waits to exit the sanctuary and greet the people, and then put away sin completely in the executive judgment (completing the second part of the day of atonement).

Very interesting posts. Thanks for taking the effort to do that.

It seems to me that the Day of Atonement, in antitype, is dealing with the preparation of a people for the coming of Christ. I think this is in harmony with EGW's visions. Where contradictions come in, IMO, is when one looks at things literally, as having to do with physical locations and physical tasks.

Regarding there only being one compartment in the heavenly sanctuary, I'm not sure what you mean by this. The sanctuary on earth was a type of the sanctuary in heaven. The sanctuary on earth had two compartments. So how could the antitype have one? Are you saying that the two compartments in the earthly sanctuary both correspond to the one compartment in the heavenly?

To me it makes sense to think of things in terms of phases of ministry, as opposed to physical locations.

Thank you all as well for considering this question.



Could you explain that a bit further?



The problem is it is not just a location issue but a timing issue. If Jesus presented the one sacrifice before God an then sat down, why would we expect a later ministry in 1844?



I am saying that the text says that the sanctuary is heaven itself. There were several points where the fulfllment went far beyond the type.

The two apartments emphasized the separation from God because the high priest alone, once per year, could go directly into God's presence. God met with the people through the sanctuary (let them build Me a sanctuary that I may dwell amont them). But it was a limited access.

In contrast Jesus went directly into heaven, in God's presence, and fulfilled the ministry one time--not like that of the Priests. In fact, Hebrews makes a big point of the fact that the earthly priest had to continually, year after year, offer the same sacrifices, which could never take away sin.

Was that the same in the fulfillment? No. It is a beautiful contrast where the type is overshadowed by the true.

Remember, the fulfillment is the true, not the type.

Jesus had FULL access, ever since ascension.



If there is no transfer of sin there is no phase of ministry.

The many earthly sacrifices were just constant reminders of the ONE Sacrifice of Christ. The blood did not first transfer then cleanse. If the animal represented Christ how could it transfer? Did Jesus' Sacrifice ever pollute? It always cleansed. The animal DIED for the sins of the offerer. If it died, why would the sin merely be transferred?

The text itself in Lev. says it atoned.

Tall:Could you explain that a bit further?

Tom:Here's a famous vision from Early Writings:



At the very end here, it speaks of an outpouring of the Holy Spirit, which was to bring light. This light is for the purpose of preparing a people for the coming of Christ, and is often alluded to by EGW in reference to Rev. 18:1 (the other angel who lightened the earth with glory). The cleansing of the sanctuary is tied into a special preparation of God's people, by way of the latter rain, which is increased light.

Here's a statement from an SDA pioneer commenting on this theme:



Note the point, "there is such a thing as 'the time of the end." and "Sin must have an end, and work of cleansing will one day be complete. How is the cleansing completed? From the same author:



The cleansing of the sanctuary is referencing a cleansing of God's people on earth. The books of heaven reflect the reality of the work taking place below. The cleansing of the sanctuary teaches us lessons regarding this important work. I see this as its purpose.

Tom(previous post):Where contradictions come in, IMO, is when one looks at things literally, as having to do with physical locations and physical tasks.

Tall:The problem is it is not just a location issue but a timing issue. If Jesus presented the one sacrifice before God an then sat down, why would we expect a later ministry in 1844?

Tom:Because the first ministry does not prepare a people for the coming of Christ. This question was addressed by Waggoner in the first quote above.

I'll continue addressing your other points in another post.

Tall:I am saying that the text says that the sanctuary is heaven itself.

Tom:Ok, but that still leaves the question why there are two compartments.

Tall:There were several points where the fulfllment went far beyond the type.

The two apartments emphasized the separation from God because the high priest alone, once per year, could go directly into God's presence. God met with the people through the sanctuary (let them build Me a sanctuary that I may dwell amont them). But it was a limited access.

In contrast Jesus went directly into heaven, in God's presence, and fulfilled the ministry one time--not like that of the Priests. In fact, Hebrews makes a big point of the fact that the earthly priest had to continually, year after year, offer the same sacrifices, which could never take away sin.

Was that the same in the fulfillment? No. It is a beautiful contrast where the type is overshadowed by the true.

Remember, the fulfillment is the true, not the type.

Jesus had FULL access, ever since ascension.

Tom:I suppose this is a possible way of looking at things, but I think it makes more sense to view the two compartments as corresponding to different ministries. This has been a very common interpretation among SDA's for a long time. In particular, Jones and Waggoner preached on this theme during the 1888 era in great detail.

During the typical Day of Atonement, there was a special work among the people to put away sin. I believe this special work corresponds to the work God's people are to do now. For example, during the daily ministration, the people could wear jewelry, they could drink. On the Day of Atonement, these things were put away. This was so the mind could be clear to follow what the High Priest was doing. Now we are to follow what the antitypical High Priest is doing, which is a special work of cleansing, not of a building, but of a people.

Tom (previous):To me it makes sense to think of things in terms of phases of ministry, as opposed to physical locations.

Tall:If there is no transfer of sin there is no phase of ministry.

Tom:I'm not seeing this. It would depend on what the phases of ministry are supposed to accomplish. I believe the first phase (which is still continuing, the daily) represents the work of Christ in regards to our having a saving relationship with Him, a preparation for death. The second represents a special end time work which is necessary in order for us to be ready for His Coming. The sin that is "transferred" is in us. The blotting out of sin represents the blotting out of sin from our character.



This is again from Waggoner.

Tall:The many earthly sacrifices were just constant reminders of the ONE Sacrifice of Christ. The blood did not first transfer then cleanse. If the animal represented Christ how could it transfer? Did Jesus' Sacrifice ever pollute? It always cleansed. The animal DIED for the sins of the offerer. If it died, why would the sin merely be transferred?

The text itself in Lev. says it atoned.

Tom:You would agree that the sacrificial service is a metaphor, I take it, from reading your comments. The question is, what is it meant to teach us? I think the questions you are asking are problems if one tries to take things literally, but not if one looks at the bigger question as to what the metaphor is meant to teach. I believe the transfer of sin represents the removal of sin from us. The blood cleanses us from sin as we appreciate the truths that blood represents.

Tall73,

Your posts are very long, so I still wasn't able to read and answer everything you wrote. However, I've tried to answer to the main points of your first post.

As you noticed in the bible texts you posted, intentional, deliberate sin, from which there is no repentance, also defiles the sanctuary; and this kind of sin makes the sinner to be cut off from his people.


I agree, and this is precisely what I said. This is how I see it: what defiles is sin, not the blood of the sin offering. However, the blood provided the means through which sin was taken away from the sinner. In the day of judgment, when the sanctuary was cleansed, the sinner did not have to die, for the sacrifice had died in his place – the blood in the sanctuary attested this. In the case of the unrepentant sinner, however, there was no blood in the sanctuary, which meant that the sin was still upon the sinner; therefore, in the day of judgment the unrepentant sinner was cut off from his people.

Leviticus 23:29 For whoever is not afflicted on this same day shall be cut off from his people.



I disagree. In every sacrifice there was the clear idea of transference of guilt and substitution; the victim took the place of the human sinner. The blood of the sin offering was then applied in one of two ways: a. If it was taken into the holy place, it was sprinkled before the inner veil and placed on the horns of the altar of incense (Lev. 4:6,7,17,18). b. If it was not taken into the sanctuary, it was placed on the horns of the altar of burnt offering in the court (Lev. 4:25,30). In that case the priest ate part of the flesh of the sacrifice (Lev. 6:25,26,30). In either case, the participants understood that their sins and accountability were transferred to the sanctuary and its priesthood. In the same way, Christ assumes the sinner’s sins and accountability. Christ is the believer’s Surety as well as his Substitute. I don’t believe Christ was my Substitute only on the cross. I believe He is still my Substitute today. And this is what the transference of sin symbolized.


I disagree. The daily ministry had to do only with mediation. The ceremony of the day of atonement, however, had to do with judgment - the Bible shows this, and the Jewish people has consistently believed in this throughout their history.

Thank you for your reply. I hope to answer at length, but a little more info would help first.

A. Do you believe, due to EGW's endorsement, that Waggoner was speaking under inspiration?

B. How can the sin that is transferred be in us?

C. Do you believe the last day work involves perfecting the character, and that without that there is no salvation?

Thanks

Thank you, I appreciate that.



If the sins were defiling the temple with no sacrifice, then why do you feel the blood is necessary to transmit? It seems it was already transmitted, though I probably don't see it quite the same way you do. The wickdness of the people cut them off from God causing His sanctuary to be pointless and His dwelling among them futile. Therefore we see Him withdrawing his presence in the book of Ezekiel from those who had rejected Him.

B. If the animal died in his place, representing Christ, then why do you feel this was not sufficient to forgive?

You are looking at the earthly type but in the heavenly there was only One Sacrifice, not many, not once per year--only One.



I have no problem with the transfer TO the animal, which represents the transfer to Christ who became sin for us, according to Paul.

But the sacrifice in the daily DIED. It atoned by its death. It substituted for the sinner. How would that TRANSFER sin?



No problem so far.

That is in the Bible.



Sorry, it doesn't say that. Can you show that is what they understood--Transfer to the priests and the sanctuary?

If anything it was already there by their wickedness, and the sacrifice atoned.

It says it ATONED for the sinner. They saw it transferred to the animal and the animal died for their sin.




The problem you have is that again you are reading the earthly type into the reality. In the earthly type you claim their was storing. Then after MANY sacrifices there was ANOTHER sacrifice that cleansed.

Did Jesus offer many Sacrifices and then another?

Then the earthly type is not sufficient, is it?





Actually, in the sense of judgment I have no issue with that. But it was not a phase to the Jews but a DAY of judgment, the day of the Lord. Each of the feasts represented events, but not phases of long drawn out activity.

The day of atonement represents the final putting away of sin. But the SACRIFICE of the day of atonement is the same as that of all the others in the true.

Therefore the meaning cannot be one thing for the sacrifice--transfer--and something else--cancelling--if both are the same in the Sacrifice in the true.

Thank you for your reply. I hope to answer at length, but a little more info would help first.

A. Do you believe, due to EGW's endorsement, that Waggoner was speaking under inspiration?

It would depend on how you defined "inspiration," but, unless one used a very loose definition, the answer would be "no." However, I think what he wrote was accurate.

B. How can the sin that is transferred be in us?

It is transferred from in us to out of us, in the sense that Waggoner explained (that is, rooted out from our character). It's not physically transferred, because sin isn't a physical thing. It is transferred out of our minds as our minds are cleansed.

C. Do you believe the last day work involves perfecting the character, and that without that there is no salvation?

I think the following describes the last day work well:



The last day work is, I believe, primarily one of proclaiming God's character, not one of perfecting ours. However, by beholding we become changed, so even though the primary focus is on God's character, that does not preclude the other from taking place (and is the only way it can happen). The way Ty Gibson puts it is something like our understanding of God's character and our likeness to it dovetail into one process. Something like that.

Regarding salvation, I think the world will be split into to camps, similar to in Acts, where people either loved the message proclaimed by the early Christians and joined their midst, or they hated it and persecuted them. The last message to be given to the world is a revelation of God's character of love. This message will be accepted or rejected, resulting in salvation or not.

Returning to this exchange...You said you disagree that the text in Numbers was speaking of Aaron's responsibility. But you did not in any way address the context I posted. You simply spoke of what it says of what happened to the blood in other passages, as a separate concept. And even then you stated what the people understood--but this text is one of two which you base that on.

If you wish to show that this text is addressing what you say then you must address it in context to show that is what it is speaking of, not simply address other texts.



Note what the text itself says the blood did:

Lev 6:30 But no sin offering shall be eaten from which any [b] blood is brought into the tent of meeting to make atonement in the Holy Place; it shall be burned up with fire.

Atonement was made by the blood--not transfer. The animal died, and if it did not die for their sins, what did it die for? Just to transfer?

I don't want to meddle too much in your conversation with Rosangela, but I do have a question and a comment.



What do you think this means? (that Christ became sin for us).



I don't think this is accurate. I don't want to me to adamant here, as I'm going by memory, and I don't have the sources I'm mentioning in front of me.

As a source for my assertion here, I have in mind "In Search of Paul" by Crossen, who discusses towards the end of the book the meaning of sacrifice in the time of Paul. We (i.e. Post-Reformation Christianity), after the fact, have given a meaning to the sacrifice which did not exist for those who were giving it, I believe.

Another work which discusses this is "Christus Victor."

You're asking good questions and having us discuss important things.

Alright, I think i am getting a little better picture of your view.

So, in this scheme you would not see transfer of sin in the daily but in the day of atonement itself?

In other words, EGW saw sin transferred from us to the sanctuary in the daily. You seem to present it as still there, in sinful character, and removed through the day of atonement in the refining of character, to display the character of God to the world?

Sorry to meddle again, but here's my take on this. To "atone" is to make at one. The purpose of the blood was to make man right with God. As Peter says:



Quoting from EGW:



The sacrifice of Christ brings us to God by revealing God's love and character, thus effecting an atonement.



This last quote is just to show how "atonement" is used to mean our being brought to God (i.e., being made "at one" with Him).

A word on the quotations I'm using, as to my intent. I am not presenting the quotations so much on the basis of authority but to clarify meaning. That is, what we're really trying to do is understand (as I see it, this is the issue) what certain things mean. I'm sharing certain quotes, whether by EGW, or Scripture, or Waggoner, or whomever, not so much because I believe what was written is authoritative, but because it is accurate and clear, and makes some point or expresses some idea better than I could.

Hm, so am I safe in saying you take the moral influence view of the atonement over the penal substitution view?

Alright, I think i am getting a little better picture of your view.

So, in this scheme you would not see transfer of sin in the daily but in the day of atonement itself?

I would say moreso in the day of atonement.

In other words, EGW saw sin transferred from us to the sanctuary in the daily. You seem to present it as still there, in sinful character, and removed through the day of atonement in the refining of character, to display the character of God to the world?

I wouldn't word it that way, but I think you've captured the general idea. However, the emphasis is not on the refining of character, but on the proclamation of God's character. The refining of character is a result. The goal is to understand and share the truth about God.



One of my favoriate quotes. I think it fits in well here.

Satan led the world (ours and his) into sin by way of deception. He deceived men and angels in regards to God's character. What is God's true character? That's the core issue. Misunderstanding God's character plunged the world into sin. Only a right understanding of His character can bring a recovery of that ruin which Satan's deception has brought.

The last message of mercy is this message: "Behold your God." It is the same message which Jesus proclaimed, which was, "When you've seen Me, you've seen the Father." As John puts it, "No one has seen God at any time. His only Son, who knew Him best, has shown us what God is really like." (John 1:18. personal translation, by cobbling some others together).

I see that the Great Controversy is about this question: "What is God really like?" God has been terribly misrepresented, and God has raised up a people for the purpose of proclaiming the truth about Him. Every doctrine exists for this purpose, that in it we may see the truth about God.

As I said, I think the blood shows that those sins are forgiven sins, that is, sins which had been atoned for.


Yes, why? Have you thought about that? Why not just an altar? Wouldn’t it be enough for the victim to be sacrificed and offered up on the altar? Why also a building - a two-apartment building?


Continuing with the questions, Why was the blood taken inside the building? Why were the priests instructed to eat the meat of the sin offerings? In your opinion, what did all this symbolize ?


Christ’s sacrifice was made once and for all. But did it serve just one purpose? When you are forgiven every day, isn’t it on the basis of this sacrifice? And if you are acquitted in the future judgment, won’t it be on the basis of this same sacrifice? This is what both services were meant to teach.


The Day of the Lord is not a 24-hour day. Will Christ’s coming occur as part of the Day of the Lord? What about the judgment and the destruction of the wicked and of the earth? But aren’t these two events separated by a thousand years?


Atonement has to do with forgiveness of sin. Christ died for many reasons but, in this context, for two:
1) to grant us a probationary time during which the judgment is postponed. If man had been judged just after his sin, there would be no hope for the human race. Christ proposed to assume Adam’s place and die for his sin, and thus he was granted a second trial, during which he could accept salvation, and all his posterity was embraced in this plan. Forgiveness during probationary time is provisional, because man is free to reject the salvation he once accepted (see Matt. 19:23-35).

2) to finally grant eternal life to those who are justified in the judgment (Rom. 2:2-16).

Thank you for your response. This is more what I was hoping to get into, a discussion of the details that makes me examine my view more thoroughly.

Just so you know my situation, and why I am even asking all this, for about a year I have been studying the IJ doctrine, trying to reconcile it with Scripture. It started out just a few questions, but grew to a long study.

I was pastoring three churches, and just recently turned in my resignation. My conference asked that I try to meet with some scholars on the subject before resigning, with the hope that I could be reconciled with the church's viewpoint. In order to do that I need to still be able to agree to both the sanctuary fundamental belief and the Ellen White one. At this time I cannot because of my conclusions on the IJ.

In any case I am going to meet with the scholars soon.

Since Daryl was familiar with my situation he started this thread in the hopes of getting some answers, though I was unaware of it at the time.

So in any case, if I sound like I am arguing the point too far, please understand that I simply must answer these questions if I am to be able to continue in ministry. I don't want to be preaching with lingering doubts.

I do appreciate you all taking the time to address these issues.

This is what I am still not understanding though--do you acknowledge that the sins of the unbelieving idolator for instance defiled the temple without sacrifice ever being made?

Yes, I agree that blood is what atones--either that of the animal, representing Christ, or the person themselves, if they spurn grace.



The building, as I mentioned above, was meant to emphasize the people's, and indeed even the high priest's separation from God on a daily basis, so that only through indirect mediation could they be reconciled to him. The sacrifice was important, but so was the presenting of it before God.

But keep in mind that from Adam through Abraham's time, and up until the law was given in stone the sacrifice WAS enough, and there was no mention of a two-apartment building. The sacrificial service at its simplest still conveyed the essential message.



The text says to make atonement

From that I imagine it was to be presented before God. The sacrifice was accepted by God to atone for the broken law (now I imagine our brother Ewall may have a different view on this part).

Hebrews too emphasized not only the sacrifice but the offering before God of that sacrifice and the resulting direct access to God where Christ went in to dwell.

The type must always be understood in light of the fulfillment. A


But if the text does not say transfer, and if the sins defiled at commission, I see no reason to imagine a transfer.

Nor have you yet addressed the context of the passage in Numbers.



It will be on the basis of that Sacrifice--and its one ministration before He sat down, which is my issue.

Nor does the fact that one also has reference to a last day judgment show transfer in any way.




An interesting question. I will think on that one. But it may veer off into other topics that for now would be a side-track.

But on a related note that is not a sidetrack, is it your view then that the day of atonement has reference to the 1,000 years and to the final judgment as well?





I see no issue with provisional salvation in the sense that there is a final judgment.

But the record spoken of in the final judgment is not the same as actual transfer of sin. It is a record. There is no indication that Jesus is now bearing our sin. He did that and paid for it already.

And if Christ can wait four thousand years to die for those sins what is a couple thousand after?



No problem there.

But note these words:

Heb 9:25 Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others;
Heb 9:26 For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.
Heb 9:27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:
Heb 9:28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.

Heb 10:11 And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:
Heb 10:12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;
Heb 10:13 From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool.
Heb 10:14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.

Jesus is done with His sin bearing work. The offering was made, which Hebrews makes clear took in the daily, the yearly, all of the sacrifices. Now the next thing is for the High Priest to leave the temple, and make His enemies His footstool.

He sat down, something the earthly priest never did, because there was never an end to their continuing work.

Tall,

My husband was finishing an evangelistic campaign today, therefore I had to be present. It's late now, but I tried to answer the main points of your last post. Some things I don't answer immediately, because I think it would be good for some aspects of the subject to be discussed before I attempt to give an answer. Anyway, I hope our discussion may be of some help to you.


No, not the sins of the unbelieving idolater, but the sins of, for instance, the idolater who professed to belong to God’s people. The cleansing of the sanctuary had to do only with the sins of God’s professed people.


Keep in mind that light is progressive.


It must be more than just that. From Adam to Sinai there were priests already (in the earliest times every man was the priest of his own household. In the days of Abraham the priesthood was regarded as the birthright of the eldest son); therefore, people already understood their need for a mediator.


To make atonement, but how?
In which way do you think that the priest’s eating of the meat of the sacrifice could make atonement?


So what do you believe? That Christ is not mediating today, but is just sat down?


If I’m not mistaken you have mentioned that you believe the day of atonement is also related to judgment and to the final disposition of sin.
The day of atonement is clearly a day of judgment. But God’s judgment has several phases. The Bible speaks of a judgment before Christ’s coming (Dan. 7:9, 10, 26), of a judgment during the millennium (Rev. 20:4, Matt. 19:28, 1 Cor. 6:2, 3), and of a judgment after the millennium (Rev. 20:11-13).
The Bible says we will be judged (2 Cor. 5:10). As you see it, when will this happen?


OK, in relation to the sanctuary I also believe it is a record, and so does Ellen White.


In relation to the transfer of sin to the victim and to the priest, who are living beings, it cannot refer just to a record. The symbolism naturally goes beyond that.
Atonement has to do with forgiveness of sin. How is forgiveness granted? What is the essence of the doctrine of justification by faith? Isn’t it in the great exchange of our sins for Christ’s righteousness? Exchange is the key word. Our sins are reckoned to the account of Christ, and His righteousness is reckoned to our account. This happened objectively on the cross, but it must happen subjectively now. Sin crucifies Christ again (Heb. 6:6). So, every time we sin, Christ bears our sin again. Ellen White has some interesting quotes about that which I will post in the other thread.

I will get to the other in a bit. But are you ever going to clarify the context of Numbers 18 or the use of the term "bear" in the other passage?

If not then your chances of convincing me on transfer are slim to none and we can go to the next issue.

I hope the meetings are going well.

I remember those being very busy times.



I see I was using confusing language. My bad. I think we are getting closer...

So do you believe that the sinning Israelite who practiced idolatry and was killed for his sin without ever sacrificing defiled the temple by his actions?




The basic sanctuary service was in place.



Do you have a text that anywhere indicates that Abraham was bearing sin on himself for his family?

I don't.

He acted as spiritual leader for his home.



why not quote my whole statement which elaborated what I meant?



The author of Hebrews seems to indicate that a presentation of blood is necessary.


He intercedes from the throne, having performed the one presentation of His sacrifice.

As to mediating, all mediation is based on this already accomplished act.

I do not in any way think He is currently bearing sins. That is precisely what Hebrews says did not happen. He went once to bear sin. Now He is in God's presence, reigning with Him, having made full provision for forgiveness.


The judgment in chapter 7 is on the little horn.

The judgment during the 1k years is a bit vague. The Scriptures do not say the nature of the judgment.

The great white throne judgment though judges all the dead, great and small. Notice this phrase:

Rev 20:15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

That sounds as though everyone has a part in it. Some are in the book, some are not.

Now notice also the words of Paul:


Rom 14:10 But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.
Rom 14:11 For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.
Rom 14:12 So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.



It is at that judgment, when all are present, and all admit that God is ruler, when sin is FINALLY dealt with, that we truly have a judgment on the saints. There is no need for an investigative judgment to make sure everything is just because all declare it so at the end.

Note the above text indicates that

a. we are present. Paul, a believer, includes himself.
b. we give an account to God (which cannot happen in a pre-advent IJ
c. we all confess.

This is the true judgment ,the true end of sin.

The other is just the judgment on the little horn.




I am not sure what you mean bye “in relation to the sanctuary”. I was speaking of the final judgment.

Notice what EGW thinks:


As anciently the sins of the people were by faith placed upon the sin offering and through its blood transferred, in figure, to the earthly sanctuary, so in the new covenant the sins of the repentant are by faith placed upon Christ and transferred, in fact, to the heavenly sanctuary. {GC 421.3}

She believes that the sin is really transferred to Christ and remains on Him now. I do not.

He bore it once and is done with it.




You have yet to show it for the priest, and the victim received it and then DIED for it, making atonement.




Jesus already dealt with our sin by the one act.


Heb 10:14 For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.

Heb 1:3 He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making, purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high.

Heb 9:25 Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others;
Heb 9:26 For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.



We avail ourselves of this act or not.





The context of Hebrews is a people who once stood for their faith, enduring persecution, but now are in danger of falling away, likely back to Judaism. To prevent this the author engages in alternating exhortation and theological reasoning to show that Christ is superior in every way to what they want to fall back to.

He notes that if they fall away they

crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.


It is my contention that this is speaking of them causing reproach and shame to Christ by their public renouncing of Him. It hurts Christ.

I don’t think this is in any way a treatise on the actual sin of people still being on Christ for thousands of years. He put away sin.

The Bible is clear that his actions defiled the temple, but even though he might not offer a sacrifice himself, a sacrifice was made in his behalf every day, since he professed to be a child of God.


The question is, can a priest bear sin? If there are biblical passages which show that he can, then Abraham was in figure bearing the sin of his family, which he, in figure, transferred to the victim he was about to slay.


This is not necessary. I just want to know your opinion about what I asked, that is, In which way could the priest’s act of eating the sin offering make atonement?


Bearing someone’s sin just means assuming responsibility for that sin and enduring the pain that that sin brings. So I understand you believe that when I confess my sin Christ doesn’t assume the responsibility for it; also, that He doesn’t suffer for my sin. My sin brought pain to His heart just on the cross - it brings no pain to Him today.


If the little horn is a Christian power, this judgment involves the professed people of God. What is your opinion about Dan. 7:22: “until the Ancient of Days came and adjudication was granted to the saints of the Most High”?


It seems very clear to me in passages such as those I quoted (Rev. 20:4, Matt. 19:28, 1 Cor. 6:2,3). The saints will be judging, not being judged, during this time.


How do you view Hebrews 9:27: “And as it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment”? Is this true just of the wicked?
And how do you view Luke 20:35: “But those who are accounted worthy to attain to that age and to the resurrection from the dead neither marry nor are given in marriage”? Does God account the saints worthy to inherit eternal life and then judges them 1k years later?


Every sin hurts Christ, but especially the sins of His professed people. Sin wasn’t put away on the cross. It’s alive and well on planet earth. What the cross did was to make it possible for sin to be put away. In my view sin will be put away when it ceases to exist.


Now about Lev. 10:17 and Num. 18:1.
I agree that Num. 18:1 could be interpreted in the way you suggested, but this is not true of Lev. 10:17.
Your contention is that in Num. 18:1 the verb nasa means “to bear,” but in Lev. 10:17 it means “to forgive.”
I don’t think this could be the case for two reasons. Lev. 10:17 says: “Why have you not eaten the sin offering in the place of the sanctuary, since it is a thing most holy and has been given to you that you may bear the iniquity of the congregation, to make atonement for them before the LORD?”

1) If the verb is interpreted as “to forgive”, the text would read, “[the sin offering] has been given to you that you may forgive the iniquity of the congregation.” This meaning is unacceptable, since it’s God who forgives sins, not the priests; the priests just made atonement so that people might be forgiven by God. No version you quoted, and no version I know of, translates the verb nasa here as “to forgive”.

2) It’s clear in the text that the priests would “nasa the iniquity” of the congregation by the act of eating the sin offering. How could the act of eating the sin offering in any way symbolize that sin was being removed or taken away (the other renderings suggested) from the offender? The only way this would be possible would be through the symbolism of the priest’s bearing the sin, that is, taking the sin of the offender upon himself, or assuming the responsibility for his sin.

I think statements like this are getting to the real issue. Everyone agrees that sin is the problem, and Christ the solution, especially Christ's death on the cross and what the sanctuary system teaches. But just what is the problem that sin causes which Christ fixes?

What I hear from tall is that sin is only a legal issue, and was dealt with by Christ's death because that paid the price for it. Rosangela is bringing out that sin is not just a legal problem. Christ's bearing our sin is not just a legal thing.

Here's what Peter says:



Christ's death "brings us to God." This is speaking of a work of reconciliation, of two parties being brought together, which is what the atonement, or "at-one-ment" is all about.

I believe the sanctuary is dealing with this very issue. It is an object lesson of how God and man are reconciled, which is to say, how man is brought to God. Christ's work in the heavenly sanctuary as our High Priest is all about how we are brought to God.

The Day of Atonement is tied in with the wedding, which is about intimacy. It is an even closer coming together.

Christ's mission was to reconcile us to God by revealing to us what God is really like (John 1:18). He is continuing to do this same work.

Some evidence I find in the Bible about a pre-Advent judgment:

1) Lev. 23:28, 29 Yom Kippur was both a day of atonement (“And you shall do no work on this same day; for it is a day of atonement, to make atonement for you before the LORD your God” – v. 28) and judgment (“For whoever is not afflicted on this same day shall be cut off from his people” – v. 29. God evaluated whether or not each person was really depending on His cleansing power and forgiving grace). So this is a judgment carried out while people can benefit from the atonement.

2) Matt. 22:1-14 In the parable of the wedding garment, the king inspects “both bad and good” guests who had been invited to the wedding feast of his son, and the inspection is done before the wedding feast.

3) Dan. 7:21, 22 "As I looked, this horn made war with the saints, and prevailed over them, until the Ancient of Days came, and judgment was given for the saints of the Most High, and the time came when the saints received the kingdom (RSV).” I see this text as parallel to Rev. 18:20: “Rejoice over her [Babylon], O heaven, O saints and apostles and prophets, for God has given judgment for you against her!” (RSV); or “Rejoice over her fate, O Heaven, and all you saints, apostles and prophets! For God has pronounced his judgment for you against her!” (Phillips). So a verdict is pronounced in favor of the saints and against the little horn/Babylon. Since there are two parties, the court must first examine the evidence regarding the two parties before deciding who is right and who is wrong.

4) Rev. 14:7 Here I will quote from the Handbook of SDA Theology, p. 833:

“In the Apocalypse the angelic messenger announces that ‘the hour of his judgment has come’ (Rev. 14:7). This ‘hour of his judgment’ is placed in the apocalyptic end-time. Within the sequential flow of recapitulated events presented in the Apocalypse, the three angel’s messages appear (verses 6-12). The first angel flies in midheaven ‘with an eternal gospel’ for all humankind with the call ‘Fear God and give him glory, for the hour of his judgment has come’ (verse 7). The reason for this final call of the ‘eternal gospel’ to all humankind is given with a causal clause, ‘because [hoti] the hour of his judgment has come’ (NIV). The reference here is to a time before the return of Jesus Christ, as Revelation 14:14 clearly indicates. ‘The hour of his judgment’ refers to the final period before the return of Jesus Christ in glory. The ‘hour’ is not a single moment or literal hour in time. ‘The hour of his judgment’ precedes ‘the hour to reap’ (verse 15). ‘The hour to reap’ is the time when the harvest is brought in at the second coming of Christ. But before the harvest is brought in, there must be ‘the hour of his judgment,’ a time when decisions are made as to who will be gathered in the subsequent harvest at ‘the hour to reap.’”

Tall, I am having a hard time understanding your objections to the SDA message regarding the sanctuary. Please, if you don't mind, state in simple summary form what you believe and how it differs from what the SDA church teaches. Thank you.

For example, I believe the sanctuary teaches us that Jesus earned the legal right to own our sin and second death by living and dying the perfect life and death, that He offers to pardon us, that He reconciles us to God, that He mediates on our behalf, that He empowers us to be like Him, that He will judge us, that He will blot out our record and memory of sin, that He will place our sin and second death upon Satan, that He will eliminate our sin and second death in the lake of fire, and that He will restore paradise.

Tall, it seems to me that this text equates defiling the sanctuary with profaning God’s holy name, which implies misrepresenting the character of God or a violation of the third commandment.

In other words, since we are God’s “witnesses”, could it mean our choices and behavior have a direct impact upon what other people think about God and the sanctuary (the visible symbol of God)?

This text doesn’t say we defile the sanctuary with our sins in the same way it is defiled when our confessed sins are transferred to the sanctuary via the sacrificial offering. Do you see what I mean?

I hear you saying that “sat down” means Jesus no longer serves as our Substitute, that He does not apply the benefits of His sacrifice on our behalf, that He is simply waiting until the day His enemies become His footstool. Where is this idea reflected in the sanctuary service?

I can't believe any Jew participating in the sacrificial services would come to this conclusion. Given what the sacrificial systems meant to the cultures of the time (the Hebrews and their contemporaries), can you give any evidence that it would have been interpreted this way? In particular, where is there any hint of a legal issue being at the forefront of the minds of any of the participants of these cultures?

Secondly, where is there anything in Scripture, and to start with, let's limit this to the Old Testament only, since that's all the Jews participating in the service would have access to, that supports the above idea? (i.e., where is some Scripture in the OT, that a Jew could read, that would lead him or her to come to the conclusion that you are suggesting).

Good question, Tom. The word justified or justification implies something legal, doesn't it? What was it about confessing sins, laying hands on animals, killing them, taking the blood into the sanctuary, sprinkling it on the veil, etc - that resulted in Jews being pardoned and declared sinless? Seems to me a transfer took place, that sins were transferred from the sinner to the animal, to the priest, to the sanctuary, later to be removed and transferred to the scapegoat. Sinners were declared sinless, another legal term. This was all done according to the law, a legal document. So much of it resembled things legal, why wouldn't the Jews have gotten the idea that something legal was happening?

I thank you all for the recent responses. I am currently reading a pile of papers and a book that the scholars asked me to before my upcoming trip, which happens in a couple of days. When I get a chance I will try to answer this too, but my mental energy right now is a bit low.

Let us all pray that the truth will prevail between tall73 and the scholars, whoever they are, that he will be meeting with in the next couple of days.

But if the text says that it will not be accepted then how can his sin be transferred to Christ?



The issue is not pain but whether He LITERALLY carries our sins as EGW says. He already literally became sin for us so that He might be the Sacrifice and pay for the sins. Therefore no, He is not still ACTUALLY bearing sin.

Is He the one Who assumed responsibility? Yes. But that provision is already made.



A. Note that the text clearly labels the little horn power and the saints. There is no confusion over which is which.

B. The little horn power is a POWER. The IJ deals with individuals, not powers.

C. “until the Ancient of Days came and adjudication was granted to the saints of the Most High”?

The little horn power was wearing out the saints, and God heard their plea and judged the power. If someone is abusing you and your family and you take the matter to court and the verdict is in your favor does that mean that the judge was examining you? No. It means the judge put an end to the abuse that was going on against you.

This is a judgment in the classic sense, which the Hebrews looked forward to. They looked forward to it because it was not a judgment on them but a welcomed deliverance from the oppressive power of the little horn.

Dan 7:21 I beheld, and the same horn made war with the saints, and prevailed against them;
Dan 7:22 Until the Ancient of days came, and judgment was given to the saints of the most High; and the time came that the saints possessed the kingdom.


The judgment of God on the little horn was what interrupted the war made on the saints. God was not confused on who the saints were, and neither were the angels unless they were pretty dense. God stepped in to judge the horn and give vindication to the saints, who then received their reward.




a. Revelation says they will be on thrones, etc. No problem there.

b. You have not yet demonstrated that I Cor. has a bearing on this text. It well may. It may not. The point being that there is little said about who the saints are judging or what is going on in Revelation itself. What is clear is that this is not the time when the saints appear before the judgment seat.




A. you have not demonstrated that all saints are alive during the 1k years.

B. You have not explained when you feel it is that Paul's words are true that we APPEAR in the judgment to give an account to God.

C. As to the timing of God's judgment I can only state what it says. Can you point to another text where it happens?

D. As to counting them worthy God knows who His own are at any moment. They "hear His voice." But this does not rule out Paul's words that we must all appear and give an account. Clearly that happens at some point.






A. Provision was made for it yes, in Christ bearing our sins and dying for them, which is my point. He is not currently bearing sins. The Scriptures say He already did that.

B. Do sins still exist in the world? Yes. They do. But the price has already been paid for forgiveness.

C. If it is until sins cease to exist, when do you see that happening? When is sin and the sinner done away with?




Actually, I agree that my choice there was not the best, though the concept is similar. The point being that the purpose of their action was to MAKE ATONEMENT not to make transfer for later atonement.


But note how other versions render it again:

(NASB) bear away the guilt

(NRSV) remove the guilt

(NIV) take away the
(HSCB) take away the guilt

(NLT) remove the guilt

As to rendering the same word two different ways, it is done all the time as translations show. The key question is one of context. In Numbers the context is that of bearing responsibility for the temple procedures etc.

In Leviticus the context is making atonement and ministering the sacrifices.




It is your feeling that this is the only way. Why could it not mean that it was to take away sin by presenting the completed sacrifice just as the blood did, also said to “make atonement”?

The real question is why do you think this is the only meaning? There is no other text that speaks of it, or any other reason to think it other than EGW’s statements on the subject. The text says here and in the sin offering service that it is to make atonement—not transfer. If the meaning is that the priests take on the sins of the people then why is that never spelled out? The meaning of the animal taking the place of the people is spelled out.

Not only that but the text plainly says the flesh of the sin offering MAKES HOLY, not defiles or transfers guilt:

Lev 6:27 Whatsoever shall touch the flesh thereof shall be holy

How then can it be said that the priest eating the flesh becomes defiled?

Moreover, in the fulfillment what do we see? We see one Sacrifice of Christ, and Hebrews says,

Heb 9:25 Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others;
Heb 9:26 For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.

Jesus did not come to transfer sin but to put it away. This is the same thing the sacrifice symbolized in the earthly.

Heb 9:27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:
Heb 9:28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.

Again Christ was ONCE offered to bear sin. He is not still bearing it. He will appear again without sin because He is done with that role. So whatever you may see in the earthly priests after the offering of the sacrifice it clearly does not indicate that Christ continues to bear sins which the Bible makes very plain He does not after the ONE offering to bear sin.

If you want to take one text to make a theology from an interpretation of the earthly type then show why it contradicts with this plain text of Hebrews stating that Jesus was offered once to bear sins…not continuing to bear sin for centuries even after the sacrifice that was made to put sin away. Again, what is the true? The type or the fulfillment?

I am not sure what scope Daryl wants this thread to have.

Essentially

A. I don't see that Daniel 8:14 is talking about the day of atonement. It is speaking of the defilement of the little horn, in answer to the question of v. 13.

B. I don't see that Christ is currently bearing sin but that He already made provision for it. He sat down, having ministered the Sacrifice, and there is no need of a later ministration of that Sacrifice in 1844 to complete atonement. The Sacrifice that He both made on the cross and ministered in Heaven also was delivered in day of atonement language. It fulfilled the sacrifice portion of the day of atonement, and indeed, all sacrifices in the earthly system. The next envisioned activity of note is Christ's return when His enemies are made His footstool:

Heb 10:12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;
Heb 10:13 From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool.

What I see is that the land, the sanctuary, etc. were all defiled by sin.

But the larger issue is that you are assuming that the sanctuary was defiled via the sacrificial offering when it says what ever the offering touches becomes holy.

I dispute that it is defiled through the sacrifice.

You are also assuming that the cleansing of the sanctuary on the day of atonement is of the sins that were already sacrificed for, because you assume a transfer. My point is that there was already sin associated with the people and the temple due to their wickedness. There is no need to posit a transfer.




You misunderstand in one point. He ALREADY served as our Substitute. There is no more Sacrifice necessary and He already presented the one Sacrifice of Himself. He applies the benefits of course of that one sacrifice, so there is not issue there.

As to the idea being reflected in the sanctuary service, is it not what Hebrews says? I am not saying this just because I came up with it but because this is what the NT says the fulfillment is. Do you believe that Hebrews shows the fulfillment of the sanctuary Sacrifice? And do you recognize that the fulfillment goes beyond the limited types as the author emphasizes again and again?

Once the sacrifice was made the person had atonement—the sacrifice was accepted in their stead and the relationship with God was restored. The same is true here. Only in the fulfillment there is no need for a repeated sacrifice again and again. Jesus already did that for us. He does not need to bear sin any longer. He now applies the merits of that one Sacrifice.

The whole issue is whether we grasp what Hebrews says that the earthly was limited in its scope because it by nature was cyclical, teaching the same lesson again and again. But the fulfillment was not cyclical but was done once. The benefits from that do not disappear like the earthly which could never take away sin anyway. But they endure, and they make full atonement, granting us full access that goes beyond the earthly high priest, and indeed makes it possible for us to go boldly, directly, into God's presence.

Tall, thank you. Your ideas lead me to wonder if Jesus has already placed the sins of the saints upon the head of Satan? If so, when did this happen? Is Satan now wandering in the wilderness?

Also, one of the many things that make the heavenly sanctuary "better" than the earthly is the fact once Jesus blots out our record of sin and places them upon Satan we will be unable to recall the specific sins we committed. When will this part of Jesus' ministration be fulfilled?

Hebrews
9:9 Which [was] a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience;
10:1 For the law having a shadow of good things to come, [and] not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.
10:2 For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins.
10:3 But in those [sacrifices there is] a remembrance again [made] of sins every year.
10:4 For [it is] not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.

Revelation
21:4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.

Isaiah
65:17 For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind.

3SG 134, 135
Those who have delayed a preparation for the day of God cannot obtain it in the time of trouble, or at any future period. The righteous will not cease their earnest agonizing cries for deliverance. They cannot bring to mind any particular sins, but in their whole life they can see but little good. Their sins had gone beforehand to judgment, and pardon had been written. Their sins had been borne away into the land of forgetfulness, and they could not bring them to remembrance. {3SG 134.2}

The scapegoat portion of the day of atonement occurred after the high priest exited the temple.

He made the sacrifice and cleansed the temple, then came out and conducted it.

Notice the parallels:

Heb 9:23 It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.
Heb 9:24 For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us:
Heb 9:25 Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others;
Heb 9:26 For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.
Heb 9:27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:
Heb 9:28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.


Jesus completed the cleansing that was compared to the high priest's cleansing once a year. He did this by entering heaven itself, directly into God's presence. Though unlike the earthly high priest who would then quickly withdraw, He stayed.

That part of the service is done. The next thing mentioned is his coming not to bear sin but to bring salvation, and then we will see the things you spoke of.

The daily sacrifice and the priestly ministration benefited all those who professed to be children of God, but if the person sinned deliberately, the sacrifice ceased to benefit him/her. Like in the parable of Matt. 18, forgiveness was revoked.

“For if we sin deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a fearful prospect of judgment... How much worse punishment do you think will be deserved by the man who has spurned the Son of God, and profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and outraged the Spirit of grace?” (Heb. 10:26, 27, 29)


What do you mean by saying that Christ literally and actually bore our sin? What I believe is that our sins were imputed (attributed) to Christ, in the same way that His righteousness is imputed to us. This means He assumed the responsibility for our sins, and the consequent punishment - the suffering sin brought to His soul. Is this what you mean?


Let's go by parts. A Substitute was necessary to prevent the outpouring of the wrath of God against sin upon the sinner. In your opinion, was Christ bearing sins before the cross or not?


It means the judge has to examine all the evidence regarding both parties, and hear the respective witnesses (Deut. 19:15, 2 Cor. 13:1, 1 Tim. 5:19, etc.). How else can a judge establish who is right and who is wrong? Even if a child of the judge was to be judged, this is the correct procedure to be followed by any fair, respectable, and transparent judge, whether in the ancient Hebrew culture or today. Obviously, the right party has nothing to fear about the judgment.


Well, the dead in Christ will rise at Christ’s coming, and the saints who are alive will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air (1 Thess. 4:16, 17). So, who is left? Anyway, are you contending that Heb. 9:27 doesn’t apply to the group of those who go to heaven with Christ at His coming?


We will obviously be present, together with the rest of the inhabitants of the universe, at the judgment which will occur at the close of the millennium, but it doesn’t seem to me that our works will be examined then. Revelation says:

“Then I saw a great white throne and him who sat upon it; from his presence earth and sky fled away, and no place was found for them. And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Also another book was opened, which is the book of life. And the dead were judged by what was written in the books, by what they had done. And the sea gave up the dead in it, Death and Hades gave up the dead in them, and all were judged by what they had done” (Rev. 20:11-13).

So this judgment is only for those who were dead during the millennium, which is not the case of those who were resurrected at Christ’s coming.


It does not make sense to me for the person to be judged after he/she is already enjoying the reward. Paul himself says: “For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive good or evil, according to what he has done in the body” (2 Cor. 5:10).


In the lives of the saints, sin will cease to exist when probation closes, Christ ceases to mediate and leaves heaven to take His children home.

“Let the evildoer still do evil, and the filthy still be filthy, and the righteous still do right, and the holy still be holy. Behold, I am coming soon, bringing my recompense, to repay every one for what he has done” (Rev. 22:11, 12).


The shed blood of the victim represents Christ’s shed blood (1 Pet. 1:19, etc.). The fact that the priest made atonement with the blood represents Christ’s atonement with His blood in the sanctuary (Heb. 9:12). What act of Christ does the fact that the priest ate the sin offering to make atonement with it represent?


Who said that? The sin was transferred to the victim, but did the victim become defiled because of that? No, it was still holy, as you pointed out. Christ wasn't defiled by bearing our sins on the cross. In the same way, the priest wouldn't be defiled by bearing the sins of the people.


The text says:

“So Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many. To those who eagerly wait for Him He will appear a second time, apart from sin, for salvation.”

What I see is that the text is making a contrast between the first and the second comings of Christ – in His first coming, He came to die and bear the sins of many, but in His second coming He will come apart from sin, that is, not to bear sins, but to consummate salvation. I don’t see how this text contradicts the view that Christ continues to be the sin-Bearer today.

As far as the scope of this topic goes, as long as the discussion remains sincere and respectful, as it presently is, it is wide open.

I also appreciate the way this topic is being studied and discussed.

I will try to respond to the other points a bit later, but I guess my question for Daryl is whether it is best to start a new thread on each aspect (for instance, the context of Dan. 8) or just to progress to that in this thread.

Either way is fine with me.

To avoid confusion, feel free to create new threads as the opportunity/situation arises.

Tall, thank you. But if Jesus hasn't placed the sins of the saved upon Satan yet where are they?

Once Jesus blots out our record of sin we will be unable to recall the specific sins we committed. When will this part of Jesus' ministration be fulfilled?

Tall, thank you. But if Jesus hasn't placed the sins of the saved upon Satan yet where are they?

Sin is not something which occupies a physical location, like a toothpick. You cannot literally place the sin of one person onto another, as if you were taking a toothpick from him and giving it to the other person.

One should ask what the different symbolic acts mean. Taking things literally which are obviously not literal is counterproductive.

Asking where a sin is doesn't make any more sense than asking where a good work is. If one does a good work, like walking an old lady across the street, can that good work go somewhere else? Can it be placed on another person?


Once Jesus blots out our record of sin we will be unable to recall the specific sins we committed. When will this part of Jesus' ministration be fulfilled?

God will not perform a lobotomy on us, forcing our memories to become deficient. When the Scripture says that God will remember our sins no more, that doesn't mean that His memory becomes faulty.

Here's something E. J. Waggoner wrote:



"They have forgotten the sin itself-they do not think of doing it any more." This makes sense.

Tom, the Bible and the SOP treat our sins as if they are "toothpicks", things which can be moved from one location to another. Who am I to treat them otherwise? Thus, the question remains: "If Jesus hasn't placed the sins of the saved upon Satan yet where are they?" Are they still in the heavenly sanctuary, in the most holy place? Is Jesus still bearing them about in His body?

Also, concerning whether or not we will be unable to recall our specific sins, Sister White plainly wrote: "They cannot bring to mind any particular sins, but in their whole life they can see but little good. Their sins had gone beforehand to judgment, and pardon had been written. Their sins had been borne away into the land of forgetfulness, and they could not bring them to remembrance." This passage needs no interpretation.

Tom, the Bible and the SOP treat our sins as if they are "toothpicks", things which can be moved from one location to another.

In symbols, but not in reality. Sins are not toothpicks. God knows that.

Who am I to treat them otherwise?

A person with a brain, and discernment, able to figure out what is literal and what isn't.

Thus, the question remains: "If Jesus hasn't placed the sins of the saved upon Satan yet where are they?" Are they still in the heavenly sanctuary, in the most holy place? Is Jesus still bearing them about in His body?

What do you think sin is, MM? Wouldn't you say it is transgression of the law? Transgressions can be recorded, but not moved around from place to place (unless the transgressor is moved around).

When Scripture speaks of sin being transferred, a process is being described. It's not meant to be taken literally.

For example, there was bread in the first compartment of the sanctuary. This represents Jesus Christ, the Bread of Life. But Jesus Christ is not a literal loaf of bread.


Also, concerning whether or not we will be unable to recall our specific sins, Sister White plainly wrote: "They cannot bring to mind any particular sins, but in their whole life they can see but little good. Their sins had gone beforehand to judgment, and pardon had been written. Their sins had been borne away into the land of forgetfulness, and they could not bring them to remembrance." This passage needs no interpretation.

You seem to think that "they cannot bring to mind any particular sins" to mean that their memories have become faulty. But the faulty memory is not the issue at all. The issue has to do with unpardoned sin. They can think of no sins to confess.

Here's the quote:



Note the topic sentence: "Had not Jacob previously repented of his sin in obtaining the birthright by fraud, God would not have heard his prayer and mercifully preserved his life." This brings out that Jacob *repented* of his sin. Jacob didn't forget what he did, but he repented of his sin.

What you're suggesting, that the people forget what they did, wouldn't solve any problems. It would make God to be petty, as if some requirement He has could be satisfied by a person's faulty memory.

The context is clear that the people can bring to mind no sins to confess ("if the people of God had unconfessed sins to appear before them ). They have no "concealed wrongs" to reveal. It's not that they can't think of sins they've committed, but they can't think of any sins they need to confess.

Thank you, Tom. It looks as though we have reached yet another impasse. I believe our sins are in Jesus in the most holy place, and will continue thus until they are placed upon Satan when Jesus returns. You do not.

I believe Jesus will one day blot out our record and memory of specific sins. You do not. By the way, I believe we will know we were once sinners saved by grace, but we will not be able to recall the details.

"For the former things are passed away."

"Perfect, as pertaining to the conscience .... because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins."

"For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind."

"Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord."

"Their sins have gone beforehand to judgment and have been blotted out, and they cannot bring them to remembrance."

"Their sins had been borne away into the land of forgetfulness, and they could not bring them to remembrance."

Thank you, Tom. It looks as though we have reached yet another impasse. I believe our sins are in Jesus in the most holy place, and will continue thus until they are placed upon Satan when Jesus returns. You do not.

What does this mean to you, that our sins are "in Jesus"?

I believe Jesus will one day blot out our record and memory of specific sins. You do not.

The record yes. The memory, no, not in the sense you are implying (like a lobotomy, or something like that). The record will be blotted out because the sin has been blotted out. That there is no more memory of sin means just what Waggoner says (which, as far as I know, is the only understanding of this event that contemporaries of EGW ever had. I'm not aware of anyone interpreting what she wrote the way you are, that God does something miraculous to cause people to forget things).

By the way, I believe we will know we were once sinners saved by grace, but we will not be able to recall the details.

So someone who was converted on their deathbed, say when they were 80, will basically not remember any of their life, except the last little bit. If someone were to ask them, "Where did you go to college" they would respond, "I can't remember, but somehow I know Calculus." Sort of like Jason Bourne. A kind of holy amnesia.

What purpose would this serve?

"For the former things are passed away."

This is speaking of sin, and the effects of sin, not amnesia.

"Perfect, as pertaining to the conscience .... because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins."

Right, the conscience is clear. But one can have a clear conscience without amnesia.

"For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind."

Even God doesn't remember them. Does He also have amnesia?

"Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord."

They are blotted out from our character, as Waggoner wrote. This is not speaking of amnesia.

"Their sins have gone beforehand to judgment and have been blotted out, and they cannot bring them to remembrance."

And neither can God. Not amnesia, but character.

"Their sins had been borne away into the land of forgetfulness, and they could not bring them to remembrance."

You're not considering the context of any of these statements, but just taking sentences from here and there. As I pointed out, the context is speaking of the 144,000 not having unconfessed and unpardoned sins:



To reiterate:

1)Your interpretation, as far as I am aware, is not one any of EGW's contemporaries held.
2)Your interpretation makes amnesia a solution, rather than a change of character.
3)You have taken into account that it is said of God that He will not remember our sins anymore. I assume you don't think this means that He can't remember what we did.
4)You have taken statements out of context, or, perhaps better said, without regard to their context.


P.S. It would be easier to respond to your posts if you included the SOP references (i.e., where to find them).

TE: What does this mean to you, that our sins are "in Jesus"?

MM: In His control. By ransom and redemption, He is the lawful, rightful owner of our sins and second death. "He is the owner of every man and woman and child who comes into the world. This He became by paying the redemption price." {TDG 355} “The second Adam stood the test of trial and temptation that He might become the Owner of all humanity.” (3SM 141) "Ye are not your own; ye are bought with a price which cannot be estimated. Then your owner is God, the mighty God, and for the price paid look to the cross of Calvary." {UL 150} God says, "I am the rightful owner of the universe ..." {OHC 199}

TE: But one can have a clear conscience without amnesia.

MM: They will have "no more ... remembrance of sins." (Heb 10:3, 4) It's not amnesia, it's a miracle, the gift of God. On this we differ.

TE: P.S. It would be easier to respond to your posts if you included the SOP references (i.e., where to find them).

MM: They were posted in context within the proximity of two posts, so I didn't think it was necessary. No problem, though, I can include references each time.

TE: What does this mean to you, that our sins are "in Jesus"?

MM: In His control. By ransom and redemption, He is the lawful, rightful owner of our sins and second death. "He is the owner of every man and woman and child who comes into the world. This He became by paying the redemption price." {TDG 355} “The second Adam stood the test of trial and temptation that He might become the Owner of all humanity.” (3SM 141) "Ye are not your own; ye are bought with a price which cannot be estimated. Then your owner is God, the mighty God, and for the price paid look to the cross of Calvary." {UL 150} God says, "I am the rightful owner of the universe ..." {OHC 199}

When you say our sins are "in" Jesus, you mean that Jesus is in control of our sins. That's what you're saying, correct? This is a very odd way of expressing this concept. I can't think of any circumstance where something being "in" someone means the one in whom the thing is in is in control of that thing. Can you give me some example of language being used in this way?

TE: But one can have a clear conscience without amnesia.

MM: They will have "no more ... remembrance of sins." (Heb 10:3, 4) It's not amnesia, it's a miracle, the gift of God. On this we differ.

Amnesia is forgetting something that happened. It would be miraculously caused amnesia.

TE: P.S. It would be easier to respond to your posts if you included the SOP references (i.e., where to find them).

MM: They were posted in context within the proximity of two posts, so I didn't think it was necessary. No problem, though, I can include references each time.

That would be helpful, so I don't have to look around for them.

You don't think what Waggoner wrote makes sense? You know, Ellen White was alive when he wrote these things, as well as others who interpreted her writings this way (that not remembering the sins doesn't mean amnesia). If her writings were being misinterpreted, she could have corrected them. I'm not aware of any contemporaries of hers suggesting that her writings in The Great Controversy and elsewhere, speaking of not being able to bring certain sins to rememberance, has to do with a faulty memory. The context is clear that they have no sins to reveal, no unconfessed sin, no unpardoned sin. This is not because they have forgotten what they did, but because they have confessed it.

TE: Can you give me some example of language being used in this way?

MM: Isn't that what the whole "in Christ" motif is all about?

TE: Amnesia is forgetting something that happened. It would be miraculously caused amnesia.

MM: Your lobotomy illustration seems more fitting. God will give us a new body and brain and mind, one that doesn't include a memory of our specific sins. We will remember we were once sinners saved by grace but we will not remember the details or the particulars. It would not serve a suitable purpose. The scars of Jesus will remain to remind us that the sinning we did was horribly wrong.

TE: The context is clear that they have no sins to reveal, no unconfessed sin, no unpardoned sin. This is not because they have forgotten what they did, but because they have confessed it.

MM: It is true that they will have no unconfessed sins to confess. But it is also true they cannot remember the sins that have been blotted out. The only thing they can recall is the good things they have done. On this we disagree.

Did Christ bear our sins, or the penalty of our sins?

Did Christ place our sins on Satan, or did Christ place the penalty of our sins from Himself onto Satan?

Penalty of our sins seems to make better sense to me.

Daryl, Jesus began bearing our sins in His body from birth. He also paid the penalty for our sins on the cross. He has not yet placed our sins and second death upon Satan. That will not happen until Jesus returns, and Satan will not die until after the Millennium.

TE: Can you give me some example of language being used in this way?

MM: Isn't that what the whole "in Christ" motif is all about?

No. The "in Christ" motif has to do with how we (human beings) are in Christ, not about sins being in Christ.

TE: Amnesia is forgetting something that happened. It would be miraculously caused amnesia.

MM: Your lobotomy illustration seems more fitting. God will give us a new body and brain and mind, one that doesn't include a memory of our specific sins.

Some of your quotes deal with the experience of the 144,000, who don't have a new body.

We will remember we were once sinners saved by grace but we will not remember the details or the particulars.

What evidence is there of this? And what sense would it make? A person who was converted at age 80 wouldn't be able to remember the first 80 years of his life? A person who was converted in early childhood would have a much more complete memory of his/her life than the 80 year old?

It would not serve a suitable purpose. The scars of Jesus will remain to remind us that the sinning we did was horribly wrong.

How, if we can't remember what sin is? The universe would be in the same state it was before Satan began his rebellion. A whole new rebellion could come up because no one could remember the details of the first one. It would be known that Christ died, but not how He died, or what for, except in abstract terms.

TE: The context is clear that they have no sins to reveal, no unconfessed sin, no unpardoned sin. This is not because they have forgotten what they did, but because they have confessed it.

MM: It is true that they will have no unconfessed sins to confess. But it is also true they cannot remember the sins that have been blotted out.

The sins blotted out are blotted out from the books in heaven, not from their memories. The sin is not in their character. The whole issue is one of character, not memory. The solution is to root the sin out of the character, not give the sinner amnesia.

The only thing they can recall is the good things they have done. On this we disagree.

I'm curious, why do you think your understanding of this is better than Waggoner's? Did you read what I quoted of his? That doesn't make sense to you? If not, why not?

If you consider how the word "remembrance" and similar words are used in Scripture, you should see that there is no need to come to a conclusion which requires amnesia. Scripture says that God will remember our sins no more. Surely you don't think this is indicating a faulty memory on His part?

How about "wages"? That is, Christ bore the wages of our sin. Satan, at the end, will bear the wages his sin (as well as of others he influenced to sin).

Tom, I think we have hashed and rehashed our differences well enough. Thank you for the comments and questions. It's been good. Unless there is something you're not sure how I would respond, let's call it quits. Cool?

I guess there's just one thing I'd like to clarify, that I'm understanding your thinking correctly, and then we can move on to something else (I'm sure this subject will come up again, anyway).

Your belief is that God sends fire upon the wicked, and supernaturally keeps them alive, so they are not killed. He acts similarly to how He did with the Hebrew worthies, in that He worked a miracle to prevent death by fire, although there is a difference in purpose. The worthies did not suffer at all, but the wicked suffer a great deal. The miracle which God performs for the wicked is to allow them to continue to live, so that they can suffer the excruciating pain of being burned by fire, without dying.

So one could imagine something like the following scenario. Fire causes damage to our tissues as they are destroyed, which causes pain. God could restore the damaged tissue, so the person could continue to live, and suffer the same pain again and again as the tissue is miraculously restored.

Have I understood your thinking here correctly?

One particular question I have is if you view the pain that the wicked go through as they are burned by fire to be same as the pain we go through when fire burns us (that is, very painful).


Tom

To tell you the truth, I do not know precisely how it will play out, how the fire works, how God manages the whole thing. I do not think your description, dreadful though it sounds, is totally unlikely. Reading the description of the unsaved perishing in the Flood is similar in some ways, that is, it is heartrending. The following details are particularly sad and disturbing, especially regarding the children:

"Some of the people bound their children and themselves upon powerful animals, knowing that these were tenacious of life, and would climb to the highest points to escape the rising waters. Some fastened themselves to lofty trees on the summit of hills or mountains; but the trees were uprooted, and with their burden of living beings were hurled into the seething billows. One spot after another that promised safety was abandoned. As the waters rose higher and higher, the people fled for refuge to the loftiest mountains. Often man and beast would struggle together for a foothold, until both were swept away." {PP 100.2}

The following description is also sad and disturbing:

"Satan rushes into the midst of his followers and tries to stir up the multitude to action. But fire from God out of heaven is rained upon them, and the great men, and mighty men, the noble, the poor and miserable, are all consumed together. I saw that some were quickly destroyed, while others suffered longer. They were punished according to the deeds done in the body. Some were many days consuming, and just as long as there was a portion of them unconsumed, all the sense of suffering remained. Said the angel, "The worm of life shall not die; their fire shall not be quenched as long as there is the least particle for it to prey upon." {EW 294.1}

Whether this fire is the glory of God or literal fire managed supernaturally by God or both, it doesn't change the fact that their suffering is sad and disturbing. Of course at that time things will be different. We will behold the work and wrath of God and declare with the sinless inhabitants of the universe, Amen! Holy and just is thy justice, thy retribution, and thy vengeance. But even this, right now, sounds sad and disturbing.

I'm glad to see you describe these things as heart-rending, sad and disturbing, as they are. If I'm understanding you correctly, you appear to feel that while these things appear sad and disturbing now, they won't appear so while it's happening(?). If you think this way, I think that's a shame, since the sensibilities of the righteous in heaven will be much greater than what we feel now, so these things will appear much more sad and disturbing, not less.

God will cry as He never has before, and will be in need of comfort from His creatures. He will exclaim, "How can I give you up?" The unfallen and redeemed will help comfort God both in their having been rescued from the wiles of Satan, and in validating that yes, God, did everything He could to reach the lost. There was nothing that could be done for them.

After the fact, there will be joy that sin is no more, but no joy at all that sinners had to die.

I'm curious as to what you think this means (from what you quoted from EW 294):

In EW 294 (quoted above) Sister White used words like "consumed", "consuming", "unconsumed", and "destroyed" to describe the ongoing and final effects of the fire. She also used "portion" (flesh) and "sense" (feeling). Her language makes it obvious that the ordeal involves intense physical suffering as well as unimaginable mental anguish.

Will our loving heavenly Father allow this kind of suffering and anguish? Why not just end their lives immediately? Why allow them to suffer at all? What purpose will it serve? During the 7 last plagues why do holy angels cry, "Reward her even as she rewarded you, and double unto her double according to her works: in the cup which she hath filled fill to her double." (Rev 18:6) Why do they clamor for twice as much pain and suffering?

TE: I'm curious as to what you think this means: Said the angel, "The worm of life shall not die; their fire shall not be quenched as long as there is the least particle for it to prey upon." {EW 294.1}

MM: No doubt it is a phrase the angel borrowed from the following passages:

Isaiah
51:7 Hearken unto me, ye that know righteousness, the people in whose heart [is] my law; fear ye not the reproach of men, neither be ye afraid of their revilings.
51:8 For the moth shall eat them up like a garment, and the worm shall eat them like wool: but my righteousness shall be for ever, and my salvation from generation to generation.

Isaiah
66:22 For as the new heavens and the new earth, which I will make, shall remain before me, saith the LORD, so shall your seed and your name remain.
66:23 And it shall come to pass, [that] from one new moon to another, and from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the LORD.
66:24 And they shall go forth, and look upon the carcases of the men that have transgressed against me: for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched; and they shall be an abhorring unto all flesh.

Mark
9:43 And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:
9:44 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.
9:45 And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:
9:46 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.
9:47 And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire:
9:48 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.

I think it is an expression that means sinners will not expire in the lake of fire until they have suffered in proportion to their sinfulness. It does not, of course, mean they will suffer throughout eternity. When people die, worms begin to devour their flesh. And, the fire will not go out until it has served its purpose. This same fire is referred to in the following passage:

Revelation
14:9 And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive [his] mark in his forehead, or in his hand,
14:10 The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb:
14:11 And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.

In EW 294 (quoted above) Sister White used words like "consumed", "consuming", "unconsumed", and "destroyed" to describe the ongoing and final effects of the fire. She also used "portion" (flesh) and "sense" (feeling). Her language makes it obvious that the ordeal involves intense physical suffering as well as unimaginable mental anguish.

I don't see how it would be possible to suffer "unimaginable mental anguish" without suffering physically.

Will our loving heavenly Father allow this kind of suffering and anguish? Why not just end their lives immediately? Why allow them to suffer at all? What purpose will it serve?

It is not God's intention that anyone suffer. He would have all repent, and be healed. Those who reject God suffer only because of their refusal to repent.

God, in the judgment, reveals the truth to all. He does this so that all will know the truth, which is very important to God. No one will suffer more than God during the judgment, yet it is so important to God that the truth be known, that He is willing to undergo this suffering. Were God to not resurrect the wicked, they would never know the truth.

During the 7 last plagues why do holy angels cry, "Reward her even as she rewarded you, and double unto her double according to her works: in the cup which she hath filled fill to her double." (Rev 18:6) Why do they clamor for twice as much pain and suffering?

This is explained in the first chapter of "The Great Controversy." In short, the angels are longing for justice. What this means is expalined in detail in GC, chapter 1.

TE: I'm curious as to what you think this means: Said the angel, "The worm of life shall not die; their fire shall not be quenched as long as there is the least particle for it to prey upon." {EW 294.1}

MM: No doubt it is a phrase the angel borrowed from the following passages:

Isaiah
51:7 Hearken unto me, ye that know righteousness, the people in whose heart [is] my law; fear ye not the reproach of men, neither be ye afraid of their revilings.
51:8 For the moth shall eat them up like a garment, and the worm shall eat them like wool: but my righteousness shall be for ever, and my salvation from generation to generation.

Isaiah
66:22 For as the new heavens and the new earth, which I will make, shall remain before me, saith the LORD, so shall your seed and your name remain.
66:23 And it shall come to pass, [that] from one new moon to another, and from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the LORD.
66:24 And they shall go forth, and look upon the carcases of the men that have transgressed against me: for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched; and they shall be an abhorring unto all flesh.

Mark
9:43 And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:
9:44 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.
9:45 And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:
9:46 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.
9:47 And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire:
9:48 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.

I think it is an expression that means sinners will not expire in the lake of fire until they have suffered in proportion to their sinfulness.

I agree with this.

It does not, of course, mean they will suffer throughout eternity. When people die, worms begin to devour their flesh. And, the fire will not go out until it has served its purpose. This same fire is referred to in the following passage:

Revelation
14:9 And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive [his] mark in his forehead, or in his hand,
14:10 The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb:
14:11 And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.

I agree with this too, that it is speaking of the same fire. Also the same fire as here:



And here as well:



Where it appears we differ is that you believe that God needs to add something external or artificial to cause the suffering of those who reject Him (such as by supernatually keeping them alive while He burns them with fire), whereas I believe the suffering comes automatically, simply by way of their being in the presence of God and having things revealed to them.

TE: No one will suffer more than God during the judgment ...

MM: Please support this assertion with quotes. Thank you.

TE: In short, the angels are longing for justice. What this means is expalined in detail in GC, chapter 1.

MM: Do you mean to say the holy angels are merely clamoring for the sinners to see the truth so that they can suffer in proportion to their sinfulness?

TE: Where it appears we differ is that you believe that God needs to add something external or artificial to cause the suffering of those who reject Him (such as by supernatually keeping them alive while He burns them with fire), whereas I believe the suffering comes automatically, simply by way of their being in the presence of God and having things revealed to them.

MM: To tell you the truth, I do not know precisely how it will play out, how the fire works, how God manages the whole thing.

"Satan rushes into the midst of his followers and tries to stir up the multitude to action. But fire from God out of heaven is rained upon them, and the great men, and mighty men, the noble, the poor and miserable, are all consumed together. I saw that some were quickly destroyed, while others suffered longer. They were punished according to the deeds done in the body. Some were many days consuming, and just as long as there was a portion of them unconsumed, all the sense of suffering remained. Said the angel, "The worm of life shall not die; their fire shall not be quenched as long as there is the least particle for it to prey upon." {EW 294.1}

Whether this fire is the glory of God or literal fire managed supernaturally by God or both, it doesn't change the fact that their physical and mental suffering is real and ultimately destructive. On this I suspect we can both agree.

TE: No one will suffer more than God during the judgment ...

MM: Please support this assertion with quotes. Thank you.

This is obvious. God is love. Love suffers when the object of love is in pain. No one loves as much as God, therefore no one suffers as much as He does.

Just imagine how painful it would be to lose one of your children for eternity, and multiply that by a billion for intensity, and billions more each child, and that's a small idea as to the immensity of God's suffering.

TE: In short, the angels are longing for justice. What this means is expalined in detail in GC, chapter 1.

MM: Do you mean to say the holy angels are merely clamoring for the sinners to see the truth so that they can suffer in proportion to their sinfulness?

No. Justice has to do with things being set right. Holy angels want things to be set right. They want a universe without evil, or injustice, or sin.

TE: Where it appears we differ is that you believe that God needs to add something external or artificial to cause the suffering of those who reject Him (such as by supernatually keeping them alive while He burns them with fire), whereas I believe the suffering comes automatically, simply by way of their being in the presence of God and having things revealed to them.

MM: To tell you the truth, I do not know precisely how it will play out, how the fire works, how God manages the whole thing.

"Satan rushes into the midst of his followers and tries to stir up the multitude to action. But fire from God out of heaven is rained upon them, and the great men, and mighty men, the noble, the poor and miserable, are all consumed together. I saw that some were quickly destroyed, while others suffered longer. They were punished according to the deeds done in the body. Some were many days consuming, and just as long as there was a portion of them unconsumed, all the sense of suffering remained. Said the angel, "The worm of life shall not die; their fire shall not be quenched as long as there is the least particle for it to prey upon." {EW 294.1}

Whether this fire is the glory of God or literal fire managed supernaturally by God or both, it doesn't change the fact that their physical and mental suffering is real and ultimately destructive. On this I suspect we can both agree.

It makes a difference as to whether their suffering is caused by God, or the result of their sin. It's the difference between whether Jesus saves us from what God will do to us if we don't do what He says, or saves us from suffering the inevitable results of sin. It impacts how we view God, and how we view His purpose.

Sorry for taking a while to get back to this.




So then it was not transferred to Christ, correct?

You mention the daily sacrifice being the vehicle for defilement. But the Scriptures do not say this. They simply say that certain sins defile the sanctuary even when no sacrifice is available. Therefore it is not through a vehicle of sacrifice as there was no applicable sacrifice.



Well this is something I have been trying to figure out. I haven’t read all of the posts to this point, so forgive me if I duplicate a few things.


1Pe 2:24 He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed.

2Co 5:21 For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

Particularly Peter’s words imply that there was more to it than just a record. He makes reference to Isaiah’s prediction of Christ bearing our iniquity.

Now cross reference this with Hebrews:


Heb 9:28 so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him.


The texts seem to indicate a taking on of sin in some fashion in Christ’s death for us. The question becomes are these sins an existing entity or a record, or accountability, etc.

The issue to me is not unimportant, but in one sense it doesn’t matter. My point is that whenever this reference to bearing sin is made the context is of Christ’s bearing sin to the cross where He then died, paying for the sin. Peter’s text is plain on this with the setting being on the tree. Hebrews too ties it to the offering on earth and the ministration in heaven. And even 2 Corinthians refers to a PAST event, utilizing the aorist:


2Co 5:21 τὸν γὰρ μὴ γνόντα ἁμαρτίαν ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ἁμαρτίαν ἐποίησεν, ἵνα ἡμεῖς γενώμεθα δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ ἐν αὐτῷ.

2Co 5:21 For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.



But this was completed by the sacrifice in which the sins were paid for. Christ bore the sins on the tree, but does not bear them any longer, nor will He bear sin when He comes the second time. He paid for the sins.

This concept appears directly before the statement regarding bearing of sins, and is in parallel to it:


But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.
Heb 9:27 And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment,
Heb 9:28 so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him.


There are still records of sin in heaven. But Jesus bore the sins and paid for them by His sacrifice and ministration of it. Those who reject that will face the record of their sin, and accountability, having spurned the sacrifice.




Rom 3:21 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;
Rom 3:22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:
Rom 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
Rom 3:24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
Rom 3:25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
Rom 3:26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.



According to Paul in Romans God exercised forbearance, with the view of a future propitiation. But the sacrifices could never take away sins. It was the cross event and its offering in heaven which satisfied the claims of the law, and which allowed God to be both just and justifier. Therefore God overlooked sins before. But it was when Christ became incarnate and made the propitiation, bearing sin, on the cross as our substitute that He properly bore sins in the sense of paying for them. This happened at a particular point in time with the benefits extending forward and back. The forbearance looked forward to this provision. But there was only one time that I could find in Scripture that Christ was specifically said to “made to be sin” or “bore sin” etc. and that is in reference to the cross and its offering.

Once again the point is that the death of the substitute made further bearing of sin unnecessary. Sin was dealt with.



If your family is being abused and you take the abuser to court the judge looks at every wrong thing you and your family ever did to see if it impacts on the case of this abuse?

No. He looks at who the wrong party is in this instance. And in this instance there are two clear sides. There are the saints and the little horn power. The judgment makes clear who is in the wrong, who is a persecuting power. The context is the oppressive activities of the little horn, NOT all the activities and sins and wrongs of the saints. The context is the key issue.



Actually I had a text in mind that we use in Revelation that does not seem to fit the way we use it. I still haven’t figured it out, and apparently neither had the lead scholar I spoke to at Andrews. I am still talking that over with them. Actually, reading on you address it below so I will address it there too.

I have no problem with the literal texts in the epistles etc. But then they do not even mention the 1k years.



Alright, now a couple of things.

Paul says we will not only be present but GIVE AN ACCOUNT. How does that fit with your view that our works will not be examined?

And if we are present and give an account, and all confess, then why does the universe need further demonstration? Some would say God needs justification before so the angels won’t be angry with taking people to heaven. Yet they did not appear angry during the thousands of years where God in His forbearance did not hold sins against people. We make the angels out to be pretty dim.


Second, as to the part about the two resurrections, let’s look at the text. You have taken texts from the epistles and read them back into Revelation. This is where I am currently conflicted. Note these texts from various sources, apocalyptic, narrative, parable, epistle etc.:


Dan 12:1 And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book.
Dan 12:2 And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.
Dan 12:3 And they that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament; and they that turn many to righteousness as the stars for ever and ever.


Joh 5:28 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,
Joh 5:29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.


Mat 25:31 When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:
Mat 25:32 And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:
Mat 25:33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.


Mat 13:41 The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity;
Mat 13:42 And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.
Mat 13:43 Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.


Mat 13:47 Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto a net, that was cast into the sea, and gathered of every kind:
Mat 13:48 Which, when it was full, they drew to shore, and sat down, and gathered the good into vessels, but cast the bad away.
Mat 13:49 So shall it be at the end of the world: the angels shall come forth, and sever the wicked from among the just,
Mat 13:50 And shall cast them into the furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.
Mat 13:51 Jesus saith unto them, Have ye understood all these things? They say unto him, Yea, Lord.


2Th 1:6 Seeing it is a righteous thing with God to recompense tribulation to them that trouble you;
2Th 1:7 And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels,
2Th 1:8 In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:
2Th 1:9 Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;
2Th 1:10 When he shall come to be glorified in his saints, and to be admired in all them that believe (because our testimony among you was believed) in that day.


Act 24:15 And have hope toward God, which they themselves also allow, that there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust.


These text seem to indicate a resurrection of the righteous and wicked AT JESUS COMING. There does not seem to be a separation of 1k years.

I used to think that the 1k years was just more detail. But that seems hard to justify.

Notice also that the text regarding the millennium does not say precisely what we have taught either:


Rev 20:4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.
Rev 20:5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection. Rev 20:6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.


It does not say that all the righteous were part of the first resurrection. It mentions a particular group—martyrs who had not received the mark and apparently died because of that refusal.

Then note the account of the second resurrection:


Rev 20:12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.
Rev 20:13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.
Rev 20:14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.
Rev 20:15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.


Here it lists all of the dead. And rather than have all those who are going to be in the book of life already decided instead we see that “whoever was not found written in the book of life was cast” ie…the was an examination of whether the name was in the book.

This seems to suggest a full judgment with only a select few especially blessed martyrs being in the first resurrection.

Now, how does this material relate to the more literal texts? I don’t know. They seem to be saying something quite different. But as church we have taken a misreading of the first resurrection and second resurrection of Revelation and read it BACK INTO the literal texts . Why would we interpret the more plain, more abundant texts, that speak of two resurrections at Jesus coming and an immediate judgment in a way that dismisses them I favor of one highly symbolic text in an apocalyptic, complex setting?

It doesn’t make sense to me. This probably accounts for the widely divergent views on the millennium during the early church period.

But the theme throughout the old and new testament seems to be the day of the Lord when all things come to a great judgment at Jesus’ coming. Revelation here seems the only exception.

Therefore I am taking the more abundant and clear texts for now over the interpretation of one apocalyptic and fairly confusing text.



Even here though he says we must APPEAR. So that can’t be the IJ. This is all resolved if we take the literal texts that the judgment of the sheep and goats, of the fish, of the wheat and tares, etc. all happens immediately at Jesus’ coming on the great Day of the Lord.



Can you please indicate how you arrived at the timing of this text being at the time when Jesus leaves heaven? What clues do you have as to its timing?

But what about those who are not saints? When does it happen for them?



A. It was another means of it being taken into the sanctuary for presentation.
B. Since you admit that not all were eaten then wouldn’t the blood have to mean the same thing? And if the fulfillment of the blood was in Hebrews 9, which I COMPLETELY agree with, then why are we waiting for another fulfillment when it was said to be once for all time?



You see I don’t think Christ was defiled because once He died He paid for sins. Was He defiled while on the cross? He became sin for us. So in that sense, yes He was. He was associated with sin and paid the price of it.

But you are suggesting that the sacrifice which MAKES WHAT IT TOUCHES holy was the source of transferring sin. It doesn’t say that at all. It says it transfers holiness.



A. Because the sin bearing is listed in the past tense. He did that already.
B. Do you not think that a one time Sacrifice and presentation of the sacrifice means one time? How then can there be a later ministration of the blood? It was already offered in fulfillment of the type.


More on this in the next post.

In the book of Hebrews we see again and again the idea that Jesus is superior in every way. He is superior to angels, to Moses, His covenant is better, He has a better priesthood, He offers better blood, etc.


In the course of these comparisons the relation of type to fulfillment is often raised. In several instances all admit to a certain discontinuity, though often pre-figured by the OT. Examples include the change of the covenant, foreshadowed in Jeremiah, and the change of priesthood, foreshadowed in the Melchizedek material.


Perhaps the most far reaching though, to my mind, is the change from many sacrifices in the OT type to the one sacrifice in the case of Jesus, once for all.

The fact that all the sacrifices are summed up in one sacrifice can’t help but change aspects of timing in the fulfillment. In other words the type can’t hold true in all respects.

Hebrews itself alludes to a number of sacrifices:



a. Red heifer, 9:13

b. Inauguration, 9:15, and others, argued at length by the comparison to Moses.

c. daily offering, 10:11, 12

d. Day of Atonement, 9:25, etc. argued at some length by the contrasts with the earthly yearly ministration


All seem to agree that these were fulfilled by Jesus’ once for all sacrifice. There is only one sacrifice, so it must also fulfill the Day of Atonement sacrifice.


Jesus is not just described as making the sacrifice but offering it, presenting it in God’s presence.

Here are some of the places that indicate a presentation of the sacrifice:


Heb 9:11 But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things that have come, then through the greater and more perfect tent (not made with hands, that is, not of this creation)

Heb 9:12 he entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption.



Heb 9:14 how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our conscience from dead works to serve the living God.



Heb 9:24 For Christ has entered, not into holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true things, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf.

Heb 9:25 Nor was it to offer himself repeatedly, as the high priest enters the holy places every year with blood not his own,

Heb 9:26 for then he would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.

Heb 9:27 And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment,

Heb 9:28 so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him.



Heb 10:11 And every priest stands daily at his service, offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins.

Heb 10:12 But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God,

Heb 10:13 waiting from that time until his enemies should be made a footstool for his feet.

Heb 10:14 For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.



The emphasis is on both a single death and a single offering. The futility of the earthly service is not repeated in the heavenly. Only one sacrifice and one presentation or offering of the sacrifice was necessary.


The text makes it plain that there is one offering that perfects the people that cleanses sin, that brings in eternal redemption etc.

As I noted before in 1:7 sins are seen to be cleansed:


Heb 1:3 He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high.



If there was a one time, and one time only presentation or offering then it must take in all the offerings of all the sacrifices ever made in the earthly. Hence the reference to the various ones in Hebrews itself (red heifer, daily, yearly, inaugural etc.)


In fact, we see no issue with this in regards to the other feasts, though it causes some differences in what we would expect from the type.


The Passover was fulfilled by Jesus death on the day of Passover. The wave sheaf, according to Paul in I Cor. 15 should be applied to Jesus resurrection on the day after the Sabbath after the Passover. Pentecost was fulfilled by the outpouring of the Spirit on the day of Pentecost and the first harvest of the believers.


Each of these feasts in the OT required a sacrifice, according to Leviticus 23. We have no problem stating that the one sacrifice and presentation of Christ’s was sufficient in each of these cases, though of course He did not die on the wave sheaf day or Pentecost, and he was not presented on the Passover etc. We recognize that the type shows one sacrifice, and that there cannot then be corresponding sacrifices on each day. Instead we see the essential meaning of the feast for what it is, but see the sacrifice as fulfilled in Jesus actions on the cross and in heaven at His ascension.


It could also be noted that we have what appears to be another instance of discontinuity in that the wave sheaf for example is performed before the inauguration of the temple itself.


However, we take a different policy in regards to the sacrifice of the Day of Atonement. We recognize that the cross is the fulfillment of the sacrifice. But we do not seem to acknowledge that the once for all offering of it also included the once for all offering of the Day of Atonement blood. And yet, I cannot escape the notion that Jesus indeed fulfilled the type there too. Jesus offered blood in God’s presence, once for all, in contrast with the earthly high priest’s ongoing, futile ministrations, year after year.


Heb 9:24 For Christ has entered, not into holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true things, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf.

Heb 9:25 Nor was it to offer himself repeatedly, as the high priest enters the holy places every year with blood not his own,

Heb 9:26 for then he would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.

Heb 9:27 And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment,

Heb 9:28 so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him.



Verse 27 and 28 state the next significant cultic event following the ministration of blood in fulfillment of the Day of Atonement sacrifice, and every other sacrifice. In other words, Jesus fulfilled the cleansing and the presentation of blood. The next event is the REST of the type of the Day of Atonement, which is the total removal of the sin problem. I agree this involves a judgment. But the ministration of the blood, as with all the other feasts, already happened.


Again we see the same in Hebrews 10.


Heb 10:11 And every priest stands daily at his service, offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins.

Heb 10:12 But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God,

Heb 10:13 waiting from that time until his enemies should be made a footstool for his feet.

Heb 10:14 For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.



Here again we see the single sacrifice, the single offering for all time and the resulting perfection which could never come from the earthly. The sitting down of Christ seems to represent more than just station or kingly function, though certainly it does mean that. But the sitting here is contrasted with the preceding phrase “every priest stands daily at his service, offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins.”


The sitting is an indication that this High Priest did what the other priests could never do. He completed once for all the offering of the sacrifice. The sacrifice did take away sins. There was no need for an ongoing ministry year after year.


This is precisely what we say didn’t happen. We say that He continues for centuries fulfilling the type of the presentation of blood in Lev. 16. Hebrews says He offered once for all time and sat down.


To me I can’t escape the notion that Christ fulfilled the presentation of blood indicated in the type in Leviticus 16.


In the type once the high priest had made the sacrifice of the goat he would apply the blood in the Most Holy Place and the Holy Place, etc. and then he was said to have made an end of atoning for these.


The next step was to leave the sanctuary and go through the azazel goat portion of the service.


Jesus, at His ascension, is clearly portrayed as presenting His sacrifice in God’s presence, offering it once for all for cleansing. He completed the part dealing with the cleansing of sin. Therefore, to my mind, the next part for Him to do in the type is the portion that happens OUTSIDE of the temple—the scapegoat and the final bearing away of sin.


If that is true then the timing of the sacrifice and presentation of blood in the Day of Atonement fulfillment would be the same as in all the other feasts. It was completed at the cross and ascension.


It seems that we as Adventists have complicated the OT type by reading in what is not there. We say that the cleansing of the sanctuary is a removal of records of sin from the books. Try as I might I can't find any record of books in the description of the Lord's goat sacrifice in Leviticus 16. But I do find a cleansing application of blood for removing uncleanness and transgression of all the people. And I also find that in Hebrews again we see an application of Jesus sacrifice for cleansing, in Day of Atonement language.


This is a straight-forward fulfillment of the type that leads me to wonder why I was looking for some other fulfillment that does not follow as closely. Jesus already completed that part of the Day of Atonement type from what I can tell. And that is the portion of the Day of Atonement type that we associate with the investigative judgment and cleansing.


It is quite simple in one regard. If Jesus sacrifice was once for all time ,and the ministration of it was once for all time, then there can be no further ministration of the blood. That was already fulfilled.

Why did the lamb die in our place if not to pay the price of sin?

Then if the price is paid at the life of the one bearing it, why would sin still be there? It is paid for.

Jesus bore our sins on the tree. He is done with that.

Or did Christ pay for our sins at the cost of His life?

This is the Bible study forum. See what you think these texts in Hebrews are saying about the author's view on the question. Is Jesus storing sin or did He deal with it by His once for all Sacrifice and presentation of the sacrifice in God's presence?


Heb 1:3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;


Heb 9:11 But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building;
Heb 9:12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.



Heb 9:26 For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.

Heb 10:11 And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:
Heb 10:12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;
Heb 10:13 From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool.
Heb 10:14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.

What does "pay for our sins" mean? Pay whom? Why? Hebrews doesn't talk about Christ "paying for our sins," does it? (or anywhere else, for that matter).



I think the answer to the question depends upon what the problem is. First of all, I agree with you that it doesn't make any sense to say that Jesus is storing sin.

If the problem is a wrong relationship, and the reason for that wrong relationship is sin, then Christ's sacrifice paved the way for man to be made right with God by His sacrifice. As Peter puts it, Christ bore our sins in His body to "bring us to God."

You seem to impute to Christ's sacrifice a forensic meaning. Crossen's book "In Search of Paul" makes it clear that these forensic meanings of the sacrifice did not exist during the time of Paul. The following excerpt of the his book is on-line: http://books.google.com/books?id=cr7dpSL...8-wUk#PPA385,M1

That's a really long link, so if it doesn't work, you can google "crossan 'in search of paul' preview" and it's the first choice. The pages around 381 and following have some information, but unfortunately not the best part in terms of dealing with the meaning of sacrifice in the time of Paul.

This is related, although it's talking about Mark, and might be of interest: http://www.beliefnet.com/story/187/story_18753_1.html

Indeed I do, though I don't see it as exclusively forensic, nor can it be reduced to only one model.

I don't think my view of a forensic element will change anytime soon. I may take some time to read your link at a later point in time.

However, if I take that view then I think there are a number of other issues I would have to reconcile and would involve me resigning from the ministry anyway to take time to work it all through.

So at this point I am going to assume the forensic element because of previous evidence that has been persuasive with me, and will stick to the question of whether sin is transferred.

If one is married to the forensic perspective, I think the best presentation of that viewpoint is the one given by the 1888 Message Study Committee. If you google "Gospel Herald 1888" you can find a site which has some material which discusses various things. You could take a look at it and see if it resonates at all with you.

I wish you well.

Tall,

I’ve arrived from a trip, and tried to comment on the main points of your posts.

The phrase "to bear sin/iniquity" is a legal expression, and it indicates that the person bearing sin is legally responsible for the sin committed, and liable to punishment. God's justice requires that sin be carried to judgment. However, when sin is judged, God cannot but manifest His wrath against it, and the sinner who committed it is crushed under the weight of God’s wrath. Now, what prevented the wrath of God from immediately falling upon Adam?

“As soon as there was sin, there was a Saviour. Christ knew that He would have to suffer, yet He became man's substitute. As soon as Adam sinned, the Son of God presented Himself as surety for the human race, with just as much power to avert the doom pronounced upon the guilty as when He died upon the cross of Calvary.” {AG 23.5}

As soon as man sinned, Christ became his Substitute, taking responsibility for his sin. He was bearing the sins of the world on the basis of what He would do on the cross. Now He bears the sins of the world on the basis of what He has done on the cross. He continues to assume the responsibility for sin until probation closes because, during this time, people have the opportunity of accepting salvation or reverting their decision at any moment.

“By pledging His own life Christ has made Himself responsible for every man and woman on the earth. He stands in the presence of God, saying, ‘Father, I take upon Myself the guilt of that soul. It means death to him if he is left to bear it. If he repents he shall be forgiven. My blood shall cleanse him from all sin. I gave My life for the sins of the world.’” {HP 42.5}

Why do you think people sin today and continue to live? When you sin, what prevents you from dying immediately, before you have time to repent and ask for forgiveness? Just the fact that Christ is still the Substitute of man – He is still assuming the responsibility for the sins of the world, on the basis of what He has done on the cross. He is not paying for sins today – He has already done that once and for all. But, on the basis of what He has already done, He is still responsible for the sins of humanity, preventing the wrath of God from falling upon man.

The whole process of figurative transference of sin in the sanctuary service just symbolized the sinner’s appropriation (or professed appropriation) of this truth by faith.

You have the right to disagree, but Ellen White's position is biblical, logical and coherent. Christ is the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.


God doesn’t need to judge anyone. “The Lord knows those who are his” (2 Tim. 2:19). The judgment is for the benefit of God’s unfallen creatures, who aren’t omniscient. And since they aren’t omniscient, God, who is a just judge, must make the truth in relation to both parties clear to them. Criminals may abuse other criminals; liars may abuse other liars. For God to pronounce a verdict in favor of the saints, He must show that they are worthy of this.


As I said, the Day of the Lord is not a 24-hour day, and the events which mark the beginning and the end of the millennium are many times presented together, because in God's perspective they are indissolubly intertwined. Often the furnace of fire is mentioned together with Christ’s coming. But if the wicked will be punished at Christ’s coming, a millennium makes no sense. Then you have two alternatives - discard Revelation as a spurious book, or harmonize all the passages of the Scriptures.


Although this point is not crucial for our discussion, I disagree. Christ was made sin for us in the same way that we become the righteousness of God in Him – by imputation. Sin was not intrinsic to Him, in the same way that righteousness is not intrinsic to us.


Which symbolizes that Christ’s sacrifice made possible all the phases of the plan of salvation: our redemption (Passover); Christ’s resurrection, which is the basis for our resurrection (First Fruits); the gift of the Holy Spirit (Pentecost); the final cleansing of sin in the sanctuary and in the believers’ lives (Day of Atonement); and the final gathering of the saints in the heavenly home (Tabernacles).
It’s interesting that the antitypical Passover was fulfilled literally on Passover’s day; the antitypical wave sheaf was fulfilled literally on the day the sheaf was waved; the antitypical Pentecost was fulfilled literally on the day of Pentecost. These are the Spring feasts – which were fulfilled at the beginning of the history of the church. The logic is that the antitypical Day of Atonement should fall on a Day of Atonement, and that both the Day of Atonement and Tabernacles, which are the Fall feasts, should happen at the end of the history of the church.


As long as we sin, there is the need for an ongoing ministry.
Besides, in the typical service the high priest, having made the atonement for Israel, came forth and blessed the congregation. Of course this will be fulfilled at Christ’s second coming. But if Christ fulfilled the cleansing and presentation of the blood long ago, why is He waiting 2000+ years to come and bless His waiting people with eternal life?

I have no issue with the idea that Christ is the basis for God withholding His wrath. Romans makes it clear that God looked with forbearance on sins committed before hand. But it was the atoning sacrifice of Christ that made Him just and the One who Justifies.

But that does not change the fact that Christ accomplished the work of presenting His own blood at His ascension. By doing this He cleansed sins. There is no reason for them to still be hanging around the Sanctuary. He accomplished the type of presenting His blood, cleansing the heavenly things. More on this to come.



You haven't demonstrated this. You have leaned on one text which as we noted makes use of a term which other places is associated with removal of sin, and is translated that way in some versions.

One text does not make a system.

On the other hand the sin offering spells out that anything it touches is HOLY not defiled, not polluted. There is no transfer of sin, but a bestowing of holiness.

The blood was brought into the holy place for ATONEMENT according to the text, not for transfer. So if EGW's system is Scriptural, where are all the Scriptures describing the system?

I haven’t leaned on one text. I have taken a long time to explain that the idea of “sin-bearer” is clearly that of someone who takes responsibility for sin in order to prevent the wrath of God from falling upon the sinner. Christ was the sin-bearer before the cross, since the Bible says He is “the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.” He continues to be the sin-bearer today, since the wrath of God hasn’t yet fallen upon sinners. Therefore, could you please tell me what is wrong with the idea of Lev. 10, of the priest bearing the sins of the congregation (that is, assuming the responsibility for their sins)? I’m having difficulty to understand exactly what you agree with and what you disagree with.


Hebrews says that the priests "serve a copy and shadow of the heavenly sanctuary" (8:5).

If the sacrifices offered daily and yearly pointed to the future sacrifice of Christ, the application of the blood of these sacrifices in the earthly sanctuary must point to two future ministries of Christ in the heavenly sanctuary.

You seem to believe, instead, that they point just to a once-for-all act of Christ of presenting His blood. Does this mean all sins were blotted out before they were committed (for those who lived after the cross)? Exactly whose sins were blotted out? Those of the whole world, or just the sins of some?


The transfer just means that Christ assumed the responsibility for our sins. Our sins are in the heavenly sanctuary because Christ is there preventing the wrath of God against sin from falling upon the world.


There is no question who the saints are? Since both groups profess to be the people of God, and since there are genuine and false Christians in both groups, the subject is not so simple as you want to make it appear. A verdict is pronounced in favor of the saints, who then receive the kingdom. But the question is, Who are the saints? All those who profess to be Christians? All those who profess to be Christians but are not Catholic? Who are the saints who will receive the kingdom?


Not everything there is hard to understand, and the information about the millennium and the resurrections is clearly presented.


Revelation mentions a group of "those to whom judgment was committed" and a group of "those who had been beheaded for their testimony to Jesus and for the word of God” – and says that they “came to life, and reigned with Christ a thousand years” (so this resurrection definitely marks the beginning of the millennium). It is also said that “the REST of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended” (so this resurrection marks the end of the millennium). So what is your contention? That just some martyrs will be raised at the beginning of the millennium, but that the great mass of Christians will be raised at the end of the millennium? But Paul (1 Thess. 4:16ff) says exactly the opposite - that the great mass of Christians will be raised at Christ’s coming – that is, at the beginning of the millennium. As I said, either you harmonize the texts or you have to discard Revelation entirely.


By your insistence on the ministration of blood at Christ’s ascension, you are virtually altering the order of the feasts, and making the Day of Atonement to be fulfilled before Pentecost. Pentecost occurred when Christ was enthroned (Acts 2:33), which, according to you, happened after He had made the presentation of blood.
By the way, you did not comment on the fact that the antitype of the spring feasts occurred on the exact day these feasts were celebrated.


One day each? Did the Pentecostal movement last one day? Or did it start at a specific day?


Of course. Certainly this is not the reason why the pre-advent judgment hasn’t been completed yet.


On the basis of this reasoning there would never be a last generation. God is just waiting for His people to get ready. When this occurs, they will give the final message to the world, everybody will choose sides (receive either the seal of God or the mark of the beast), and then the judgment of the living will take place just before probation closes, ratifying the decision every person has made. Christ will then cease to bear sins, leave the sanctuary, and the wrath of God will begin to fall (Rev. 15:8). He will then come back to take His people home.

Note. I have decided at this time to terminate my employment with the conference and to leave the SDA church.

I don't know if Daryl wants me speaking here or not at this point as he has not clarified that. If he does not I understand.

I am still looking at evidence on this and other questions. But I am fairly convinced at this point.






That appears to be because we are talking about two different concepts as though they were the same.

Christ was said in the Scriptures to BEAR sin at the cross. Now I have no issue with the notion that Christ is the basis for our forgiveness from beginning to end. But there was a set time where He accomplished certain things, including actual bearing of sins, whatever the biblical record means by that.

Now the topic here in this thread is whether the blood defiles. This is a topic dealing with the Hebrew cultic system, not generic references to Who it is that bears sin.

The question that I have is what are the texts that Adventists use to show a transfer of sin to the sanctuary during the sacrifices.

You have offered one text to support that there is transfer during the sacrifices, and it was to the priest, not the temple.

I have offered a counter rendering of the text based on other translations and usage of the word in other Scriptures. I have also offered a clear text that says the sin offering made HOLY everything that it touched, not defiled.

Therefore you have only ONE clear text on this transfer of sin issue and it is called heavily into question.

That is the issue.

Now the larger issue is that Christ is seen as dealing with sin at His ascension, making provision for all other actions. The forward looking in the OT and the backward looking in the New are all predicated on that one sacrifice and offering of it. That is when He bore sin and then it was said he put away sin, made purification for sin, etc.



A. It said it was once for all. This was covered at greater length above.

B. Sins before hand were left unpunished on the basis of future ministration of blood. Sins after were cleansed by the same ministration of blood in the past. That is why it says sins were put away etc.

C. By the logic that they point to two SEPARATE ministries you could say that they pointed to two separate sacrifices, which was also true in the type. And then you don't just have daily and yearly. In fact you have daily, you have all the sacrifices of the feasts, you have the sin offerings, you have the red heifer, etc. All of these were taken care of by ONE sacrifice in the fulfillment. There is no denying that. You want the one exception to be the day of atonement. But once for all means once for all. And the type was clearly altered in this way.





Atonement means atonement. Transfer means transfer. Jesus did not die just to tranfer, He made cleansing for sins according to Hebrews. He made ATONEMENT according to the type. Nowhere does it say that the sacrifices transfered at all. It may make sense in your mind, but it never says it in the text.



Sorry, you are reading into the text again. The text says the saints and the little horn. God knows who was who and He intervened which is the whole point of the text. It is DELIVERANCE that is in view. Not judging God's saints.



Clearly presented how? Not the way we say it. The ones described as having a part in the first resurrection are a limited group.

This differs with the other texts of the NT. None of the other texts in the NT posit this notion of a 1k years at all, but speak of goats and sheep being divided at His coming, etc.

We say that the reign is in heaven. But the text in Revelation does not say that. In fact when Satan gets back he goes out to stir up the nations. Who are the nations? This is before the account of the dead being raised and the dead are only raised for the judgment.

it is not as we have said.



Now you are catching on. All the other texts say the exact opposite. But that does not make Revelation say what you want. It just means the others say the exact opposite.



Or you look again at the symbols because our harmonization doesn't fit the text. Harmonize does not mean alter to make it work.

If we haven't understood it then we can just say that.



Ah but I did, in some detail. Check here:

http://www.maritime-sda-online.org/forum...rt=13#Post92198


Now, the point is that Jesus fulfilled ALL the sacrifices in one. This by its nature altered the type.

So let me ask this. How can the passover and wavesheaf be fulfilled before the inauguration of the temple?

When did the sacrifice and presentation of it happen for the passover fulfillment? What about the wavesheaf?

Far from being a point for your side this amply demonstrates my argument. Jesus' ONE sacrifice was all there was. The one presentation of it fulfilled the sacrifice for passover, for wavesheaf, for pentecost etc.

And my view is not in conflict with a later fulfillment of the non-sacrificial part of the day of atonement--the scapegoat. Therefore the timing of the feast is not altered. But the sacrifice and its offering, just like every other one, happened at Jesus' ascension when he made cleansing for sin.


So you feel Jesus is still being resurrected? Or the passover Lamb is still being offered?

In any case, even if you want to make the day of atonement a period the beginning of it was when Jesus ascended.



So the delay is not due to the IJ. Then why do you need an IJ to explain what Jesus is doing?

Or do you?


So we are now not dealing with the living? Or is it in standby mode dealing with folks as they die?

As to by this reasoning, I don't do any of the reasoning because I no longer accept an IJ of the Adventist sort.

Tall: But that does not change the fact that Christ accomplished the work of presenting His own blood at His ascension. By doing this He cleansed sins. There is no reason for them to still be hanging around the Sanctuary.

MM: I haven't taken the time to thoroughly read this thread, so please forgive me if the following questions have already been addressed:

1. What was the status of the sins of the world before Jesus "cleansed" them with His own blood at His ascension? How are they different? What changed?

2. Where were the sins of the world "hanging around" before Jesus presented His own blood at His ascension? Where are they now? When will they be placed upon Satan? When will they cease to exist?

3. Now that the sins of the world have been "cleansed" by the blood of Jesus at His ascension, is repentance and forgiveness still necessary? If so, why? If not, why not?

PS - Please feel free to answer these questions in brief summary form. I will ask for biblical support later on. For now, though, I am interested in the simple answer. Thank you.

Tall: I have decided at this time to terminate my employment with the conference and to leave the SDA church.

MM: It seems like you have made the honorable choice. Such transitions, however, can be very stressful. Changing employment is huge. Coupled with your theological shift - I cannot imagine what it is like to be in your shoes right now. You are in my prayers. I trust Jesus will bless your efforts to serve Him in accordance with your conscience and convictions. Please keep me up to date as God leads and opens doors. Thank you.

If I understood you correctly, in your view as soon as someone sinned (whether he had repented of this sin or not), his sin defiled the sanctuary. The transference of sin to the victim, who died for it, constituted another process, unrelated to the defilement of the sanctuary.

First let’s see how the sanctuary was defiled.
The sanctuary could be defiled by those who did not belong to the people of God. However, this refers to a physical defilement (Ps 74:7, 79:1).

The sanctuary also could be defiled by deliberate sins of the people of God (Ez 23:38, Zeph. 3:4) - sins unrepented of, for which no personal blood offering was presented. This was a spiritual defilement, but these sins defiled the sanctuary in a different way than sins repented of. They defiled or profaned the sanctuary in the same way that they defiled the whole land (Jer. 16:18), that they defiled God’s name (Ez 36:20, Am 2:7), and that they profaned God Himself (Ez 22:26).

You will notice that in the day of atonement it was not these sins, but the sins repented of that the high priest brought from the sanctuary after the atonement, cleansing it (Lev. 16:20-22). So the annual cleansing of the sanctuary had mainly to do with sins repented of, which had accumulated in the sanctuary during the year.

Now you ask, how do we come to the conclusion that these sins were transferred to the sanctuary through the sacrifices?
If the sanctuary were defiled as soon as someone sinned, this could be understood in terms of the building itself, or more specifically in terms of the holy of holies, where the transgressed law was. What would the altar (which was directly associated with the sacrifices) have to do with this?

However, the Bible says,
“And he shall sprinkle of the blood upon it [the altar] with his finger seven times, and cleanse it and hallow it from the uncleanness of the children of Israel” (Lev. 16:19).
Why was the altar cleansed on the day of atonement, except for the fact that it had been defiled by the transgressions of the children of Israel? And how could it have been defiled except by the transference of sin through the sacrifices?
If everything that the sacrifice touched was holy, how is it that the altar was defiled?

There are two pieces of furniture which are specifically mentioned as being cleansed on the day of atonement – the sacrifice altar (Lev. 16:18-20) and the incense altar (Ex. 30:10).
Why had the incense altar to be atoned for? Because, as we have already discussed, there were two kinds of sin-offerings:
1) those from which the blood wasn’t taken inside the sanctuary. In this case the priest ate the flesh – Lev. 6:26, 7:7
2) those from which the blood was taken inside the sanctuary. In this case part of the blood was sprinkled before the veil and part of it was put on the horns of the incense altar - Lev. 4:6,7,17,18. So that’s why the incense altar had to be atoned for.

This fact - the defilement of the altars - implies, in my opinion, that sin was indeed transferred to the sanctuary by the blood.


As I see it, when the priest offered a sacrifice for himself, bringing the blood to the holy place (Lev. 4:1-7), the sins which had been transferred to him would end up being transferred to the temple together with his own.


You are trying to dissociate concepts that cannot be dissociated. If Christ’s work of bearing sins had the purpose of preventing the wrath of God from falling upon humanity, and if the wrath of God hasn’t yet fallen upon humanity, the obvious conclusion is that Christ is still bearing our sins. On the cross He suffered, once for all, the punishment for the sins He was bearing. This is what distinguishes the moment of the cross from the period of mediation which preceded and succeeded the cross.


What I asked was, Were sins blotted out at Christ’s ascension? In this case, whose sins were blotted out?


Red heifer and sin offerings obviously were related to the daily service. Among the feasts, only the day of atonement is directly related to the process of atonement for sin.

There were two services related to the atonement of sin – the daily service, in the first apartment, and the yearly service, in the second apartment. Paul says that (Heb. 9:1-7) and there is no denying that. The question is, Since the priests "serve a copy and shadow of the heavenly sanctuary" (8:5), what did the ministry in the first apartment typify, and what did the ministry in the second apartment typify?

Please notice that, as I have already pointed out, the daily service was prominently a MEDIATORIAL service, while the ritual of the Day of Atonement was prominently a JUDGMENT service.


And you are failing to perceive what the text implies. The text speaks about a JUDGMENT, with books open and everything else, and of course God doesn’t need a judgment for His own benefit, since He obviously already knows who is who. You want me to believe that He makes a judgment for the benefit of the universe but then passes judgment in favor of some anonymous people called “saints” whose identity only He knows. What kind of judgment is that? Certainly one which doesn’t enlighten anyone.


Because a certain group is singularized, this doesn’t at all mean they are the only ones to be resurrected. So it’s not really difficult to harmonize this part of Revelation with the rest of the Bible. Your real problem is not being able to harmonize Revelation with your view about the judgment.
You raise a number of questions related to Revelation. If you would like to discuss them, it would be interesting to open a new thread about this.


The altar of the temple was on earth, therefore the temple was inaugurated at the moment the Victim was offered on the altar.
There was no presentation of blood inside the temple for Passover or Wavesheaf. They required just burnt offerings.


If the fulfillment of some feasts was a punctiliar event, this doesn’t mean the fulfillment of all the feasts must necessarily be so. Pentecost definitely wasn’t a punctiliar event. But the fact is that Passover, Wavesheaf and Pentecost occurred on the exact date of the type, and of course the order of events is important. How could Christ be raised before dying? How could He send the Holy Spirit without dying and being raised?


We believe the IJ because we believe it is the antitype of the work of judgment of the Day of Atonement. Please bear in mind that the judgment of God’s people typified by the Day of Atonement can’t symbolize a judgment at or after Christ’s coming, because people were being judged while the atonement was being made in the sanctuary.

Tall,
This was a very long post. I hope my direct style of writing doesn't offend you. And I'm keeping you in my prayers.

tall, I wish you well.

It seems to me that you are arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. The sanctuary service was designed to teach truth about the plan of salvation and the character of God. The big picture seems to me to be completely missing.

I'd encourage you to continue studying with Dr. Davidson, if that's possible. I have the greatest respect for him.

Again, I wish you well.


Tom

As long as you don't focus on Tall's announcement, and Tall doesn't focus on it either, of his leaving the church, Tall is more than welcome to continue discussing the topic being discussed in this thread.

Yes, for a few reasons.

1. That is the only way that is directly described for defilement to occur. Now in this case they are the most extreme ones, those for which sacrifice would not be accepted. But it does explain a mechanism which the Bible actually spells out, rather than one that is inferred.

2. Other things are also defiled. Sin taints everything around it but it is especially odious in the presence of God, in the sanctuary where He dwells. Notice these references to defilement. Some of them are for non-death penalty sins, or even uncleaness. Note also that Lev. 16 speaks of all the sin AND uncleanness of the people.



(Lev 15:31) "Thus you shall keep the people of Israel separate from their uncleanness, lest they die in their uncleanness by defiling my tabernacle that is in their midst."


(2Ch 36:14) All the officers of the priests and the people likewise were exceedingly unfaithful, following all the abominations of the nations. And they polluted the house of the LORD that he had made holy in Jerusalem.


Contamination of camp and land:

(Psa 106:38) they poured out innocent blood, the blood of their sons and daughters, whom they sacrificed to the idols of Canaan, and the land was polluted with blood.


Num 5:2 Command the children of Israel, that they put out of the camp every leper, and every one that hath an issue, and whosoever is defiled by the dead:
(Num 5:3) You shall put out both male and female, putting them outside the camp, that they may not defile their camp, in the midst of which I dwell."

(Num 35:34) You shall not defile the land in which you live, in the midst of which I dwell, for I the LORD dwell in the midst of the people of Israel."


(Deu 21:23) his body shall not remain all night on the tree, but you shall bury him the same day, for a hanged man is cursed by God. You shall not defile your land that the LORD your God is giving you for an inheritance.

(Jer 32:34) They set up their abominations in the house that is called by my name, to defile it.

(Deu 24:4) then her former husband, who sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after she has been defiled, for that is an abomination before the LORD. And you shall not bring sin upon the land that the LORD your God is giving you for an inheritance.
(Jer 2:7) And I brought you into a plentiful land to enjoy its fruits and its good things. But when you came in, you defiled my land and made my heritage an abomination.

(Jer 3:1) "If a man divorces his wife and she goes from him and becomes another man's wife, will he return to her? Would not that land be greatly polluted? You have played the whore with many lovers; and would you return to me? declares the LORD.

(Jer 3:9) Because she took her whoredom lightly, she polluted the land, committing adultery with stone and tree.


People defiling themselves:

(Eze 14:11) that the house of Israel may no more go astray from me, nor defile themselves anymore with all their transgressions, but that they may be my people and I may be their God, declares the Lord GOD."

(Eze 20:31) When you present your gifts and offer up your children in fire, you defile yourselves with all your idols to this day. And shall I be inquired of by you, O house of Israel? As I live, declares the Lord GOD, I will not be inquired of by you.

Isa 59:2 but your iniquities have made a separation between you and your God, and your sins have hidden his face from you so that he does not hear.
Isa 59:3 For your hands are defiled with blood and your fingers with iniquity; your lips have spoken lies; your tongue mutters wickedness.


This defiling of the land, the sanctuary, etc. happened automatically by the presence of wickedness. The people could find forgiveness for sin but this tainting happened immediately as the result of such actions.



There are indications in the texts above that more than just the very serious sins defiled.





Here is the description. He actually cleanses the mercy seat, the holy place and the altar.


Lev 16:15 Then shall he kill the goat of the sin offering, that is for the people, and bring his blood within the vail, and do with that blood as he did with the blood of the bullock, and sprinkle it upon the mercy seat, and before the mercy seat:
Lev 16:16 And he shall make an atonement for the holy place, because of the uncleanness of the children of Israel, and because of their transgressions in all their sins: and so shall he do for the tabernacle of the congregation, that remaineth among them in the midst of their uncleanness.
Lev 16:17 And there shall be no man in the tabernacle of the congregation when he goeth in to make an atonement in the holy place, until he come out, and have made an atonement for himself, and for his household, and for all the congregation of Israel.
Lev 16:18 And he shall go out unto the altar that is before the LORD, and make an atonement for it; and shall take of the blood of the bullock, and of the blood of the goat, and put it upon the horns of the altar round about.
Lev 16:19 And he shall sprinkle of the blood upon it with his finger seven times, and cleanse it, and hallow it from the uncleanness of the children of Israel.
Lev 16:20 And when he hath made an end of reconciling the holy place, and the tabernacle of the congregation, and the altar, he shall bring the live goat:


Now Roy Gane in his books Altar Call and Cult and Character actually shows that the sin is seen to be going from the Most Holy FIRST, then out into the holy place and then finally out through the court. In other words it is a description of contamination leaving out through a course of most holy to least holy.



But the text itself is in question because usually the meaning of the term in that context is REMOVAL of sin, bearing away, not bearing on his person.

Moreover you mention that this is “as you see it.” The text does not describe this process as you see it. This is something you are left to infer.

Now as to the point of “anything that the sacrifice touches is holy, how can the altar be defiled?”…the above would explain that. It would also make sense of the fact that something that makes holy DOES NOT defile. It makes holy.



Mediation is based on previous sacrifice and ministration. That is my point. Jesus already paid the ultimate price for our sins. He presented the blood for that sacrifice in God’s presence. That is done. It will never be done again. He now mediates in real time on that basis. But as for heaven the work to cleanse it has already been done:



Heb 9:23 Thus it was necessary for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these rites, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.
Heb 9:24 For Christ has entered, not into holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true things, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf.
Heb 9:25 Nor was it to offer himself repeatedly, as the high priest enters the holy places every year with blood not his own,
Heb 9:26 for then he would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.


Here Jesus is said to appear in the presence of God. This appearance includes ENTERING and "not offering himself repeatedly as the high priest ENTERS the sanctuary EVERY YEAR."

Now the offering of the high priest every year INCLUDED the entering with blood. So did Jesus' offering. Jesus’ offering, including the entering with blood, was not done "repeatedly". It was done once for all.

Now, what is the timing of this entry and of the cleansing of the heavenly things? Verse 23 is in fact ambiguous as some of our scholars have pointed out.

Heb 9:23 ᾿Ανάγκη οὖν τὰ μὲν υποδείγματα των εν τοις ουρανοις τούτοις καθαρίζεσθαι, αυτὰ δὲ τὰ επουράνια κρείττοσιν θυσίαις παρὰ ταύτας.


καθαριζω (To cleanse) is in the infinitive. The main verb is an assumed “be” verb. The point of the argument doesn’t really require timing. It is arguing that the type requires fulfillment—things must be cleansed with blood. In the OT type the earthly was cleansed with blood. Therefore the heavenly things must be cleansed.

However, this is only one verse in a series of verses that form an argument. And the tenses all around it are all past. The next verse does not indicate a future action. Nor can we jump over verse 24 –27 to look at the future events referenced in verse 28 without dealing with the tenses of those verses and their relation to his previous argument.


Heb 9:23 Thus it was necessary for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these rites, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.
Heb 9:24 For Christ has entered, not into holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true things, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf.

Verse 24 continues the argument of the preceding section. This is picked up in the English “for”. He is now showing HOW the cleansing occurred, arguing that everything is cleansed with blood, and so was the heavenly. The English “for” is the translation of γαρ.

Jesus went into the true tabernacle, heaven itself, and appeared in God’s presence. This is parallel to the entrance of the high priest into God’s presence once per year. The ENTERED in this case is again past tense, εισηλθεν. This then orients the timing of the entering with blood and associated activities.

Verses 25-26 make this even more clear through day of atonement references:


Heb 9:24 For Christ has entered, not into holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true things, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf.
Heb 9:25 Nor was it to offer himself repeatedly, as the high priest enters the holy places every year with blood not his own,
Heb 9:26 for then he would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.


1. Entered (earlier said to be once for all and with blood)
2. in the presence of God, parallel to the Day of Atonement
3. High Priest, who had a distinctive role on the Day of Atonement
4. Every year, reference to the yearly role
5. blood not his own, the high priest had to do this, but Jesus did not. It refers back direcly to verse 7:

Heb 9:7 but into the second only the high priest goes, and he but once a year, and not without taking blood, which he offers for himself and for the unintentional sins of the people.
6. Put away sin.

Here Jesus is directly compared to the yearly offering. He offered HIMSELF as the earthly high priest enters the holy places every year with other blood. He entered in by means of His own blood. Jesus did not just die as the sacrifice but ministered the blood. He ministered it in our behalf. That part of the type is fulfilled.

That is my main issue with the IJ. The type that we say is to be fulfilled in the IJ is the cleansing of the heavenly things. But Hebrews says it already happened. It is not going to happen twice. Jesus entered ONCE into God’s presence by means of His own blood. He already offered the blood of the once for all sacrifice. That is all in the past.




All sin was dealt with at the ascension on a corporate level. Individual benefit happen in real time. Therefore the author could say that Jesus made purification for sins in chapter 1 and that he put away sin in chapter 9, and that he “forever made perfect those who are being made holy” in chapter 10. But then he can also speak of real time benefits to this completed process:


Heb 10:19 Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus,
Heb 10:20 By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh;
Heb 10:21 And having an high priest over the house of God;
Heb 10:22 Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water.
Heb 10:23 Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering; (for he is faithful that promised;)


Here we see an illustration built on the water of cleansing, earlier referenced in the red heifer statement.

The sacrifice was made ahead of time for the water of cleansing. But people would come and benefit as they had need.



I think you are missing the point. There is no later sacrifice. He already ministered the blood. He already entered into God’s presence. There is no other time for blood to be used because it was presented and accepted.

When for instance was the blood for the sacrifice of the feast of unleavened bread offered?

It could NOT have been offered at the time as Jesus was not ascended yet. It was offered at the same time as the blood for every other sacrifice because there was only ONE sacrifice. The type is the blood. It is not books. More on this to come.



All of the sacrifices were reminders of the one sacrifice of Christ. The day of atonement represented the ministration of blood in God’s presence for the defiling of the temple of corporate guilt, from what I can tell. The scape goat is never outlined in the NT, so I can’t really say.



Yes, but I do not agree with this entirely. The judgement of the day of atonement occurred for those who did not follow the prescriptions for the feast. It was not inherent in the actual cleansing types themselves. The types did not have INVESTIGATION of the blood or the the sins. It just had cleansing by blood in God’s presence.

The judgment part was based on the response of the people to what was done for them. Those who did not follow the prescriptions and afflict themselves and who neglected their salvation were cut off. In the same way those who do not heed their salvation and the work done by Christ are cut off, as the author also notes:


Heb 10:26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,
Heb 10:27 But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.
Heb 10:28 He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:
Heb 10:29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?
Heb 10:30 For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people.
Heb 10:31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.





No I am suggesting that the heavenly intelligences can see WHO is being persecuted and BY whom they are being persecuted. And God intervenes to bring justice by bringing the little horn to an end. He is judging the little horn, not His people.



A. It states who will be in the resurrection. It is not who we say. And it says THE REST OF THE DEAD WILL NOT LIVE AGAIN UNTIL….that does in fact rule out others.

B. The second group is all the dead small and great and some appear to be in the book and some don’t.

C. Yes, perhaps another thread would be in order, but frankly I have bigger issues to look at right now, and will likely have to get to that later. I have no problems with the idea of Revelation presenting a great throne judgment that all appear before as it makes sense of the NT texts regarding giving an account to God and appearing before the judgment seat.



A. As to the burnt offering, the general description of a burnt offering in Lev. 1 seems to indicate a presentation of blood. So does the burnt offering in connection with the anointing of the Priests and the temple in Leviticus 9. But in general you may well be right. I could not find an indication of the presentation of blood for the daily burnt offering. Therefore, unless it was handled in the same way as the burnt offering of the individual, there may be none.

B. As to the inauguration though that is not what the text indicates. The inauguration had a lot of sprinkling of blood on all the items in the temple. It was not inaugurated just by the sacrifice.

In any case, my larger point is that the timing of the earthly CANNOT be reproduced in the heavenly because of the radical departure of having one sacrifice take in all the sacrifices:

This fairly cheesy picture that I drew up illustrates the point. The once for all sacrifice already happened. The once for all entrance happened. The entering into God’s presence happened, by means of Jesus blood, in comparison to the yearly service. Hebrews also speaks of the daily being fulfilled. The point is that Jesus already offered the sacrifice and presented the blood. That part of the type of EVERY sacrifice is already done. It won’t be happening again.










The problem is that there was only one time that Jesus entered by means of His blood. That part of the type is done. The scape goat we do not know because it is not spelled out. It may yet have a fulfillment that correlates to the date. But I cannot reject what Hebrews says in day of atonement language. That part of the type is fulfilled. They type of cleansing was a ministration of blood by the High Priest in God’s presence, and that is what Hebrews describes.

As to the later ones not being a punctiliar event, that is up to you to demonstrate why the spring are and the fall are not.



You have read in judgment and investigation when the text says cleansing.



Thank you for your prayers. No, I am not offended by the length or the tone. It is better to get all these things out in a clear manner. That is not offensive in the least.

I am sorry I forgot about this for a while due to discussions other places and other issues I was looking into. And I want to thank you again for taking time to discuss these things. I appreciate it. I have learned a lot in this investigation though I cannot agree completely with the church on these things.

Here is another clarification on my views regarding the day of atonement type of cleansing




Adventists say that the Investigative Judgment is the cleansing of the heavenly record books. They see this as the fulfillment of the Day of Atonement type of cleansing the sanctuary by blood in Leviticus 16.

But was the type about books?

Or was the type about blood?

Read for yourself:

Lev 16:12 And he shall take a censer full of coals of fire from the altar before the LORD, and two handfuls of sweet incense beaten small, and he shall bring it inside the veil
Lev 16:13 and put the incense on the fire before the LORD, that the cloud of the incense may cover the mercy seat that is over the testimony, so that he does not die.
Lev 16:14 And he shall take some of the blood of the bull and sprinkle it with his finger on the front of the mercy seat on the east side, and in front of the mercy seat he shall sprinkle some of the blood with his finger seven times.
Lev 16:15 "Then he shall kill the goat of the sin offering that is for the people and bring its blood inside the veil and do with its blood as he did with the blood of the bull, sprinkling it over the mercy seat and in front of the mercy seat.
Lev 16:16 Thus he shall make atonement for the Holy Place, because of the uncleannesses of the people of Israel and because of their transgressions, all their sins. And so he shall do for the tent of meeting, which dwells with them in the midst of their uncleannesses.
Lev 16:17 No one may be in the tent of meeting from the time he enters to make atonement in the Holy Place until he comes out and has made atonement for himself and for his house and for all the assembly of Israel.
Lev 16:18 Then he shall go out to the altar that is before the LORD and make atonement for it, and shall take some of the blood of the bull and some of the blood of the goat, and put it on the horns of the altar all around.
Lev 16:19 And he shall sprinkle some of the blood on it with his finger seven times, and cleanse it and consecrate it from the uncleannesses of the people of Israel.

Did you see in that text a description of someone pouring over books in judgment? I didn't.

What was there?

There was a presentation of blood in the presence of God, in the Most Holy Place, where the blood was brought right to the ark where God dwelt.

Cleansing was made for the holy things.

Now when we look for the fulfillment of this type what should we be looking for? Books or blood?

Obviously we should be looking for blood brought into God's presence for the purpose of cleansing and atonement. And that is what we find in Hebrews:


Heb 9:22 Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.
Heb 9:23 Thus it was necessary for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these rites, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.
Heb 9:24 For Christ has entered, not into holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true things, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf.
Heb 9:25 Nor was it to offer himself repeatedly, as the high priest enters the holy places every year with blood not his own,
Heb 9:26 for then he would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.


Jesus fulfilled the type at His ascension. We have been misinterpreting the type to support an investigative judgment in 1844. We made it about books and judgment. But it was about blood and atonement for sin.

Note also this text, in close proximity:

Heb 9:11 But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things that have come, then through the greater and more perfect tent (not made with hands, that is, not of this creation)
Heb 9:12 he entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption.


The true fulfillment of the type was already spelled out.

There may be a reason for your viewing it this way. The transfer of sin issue is not in any way my primary objection to the Sanctuary doctrine. Daryl started this due to a thread in another forum that went through a number of issues, of which this is part.

Since he started the thread and wanted my input in it I agreed. But I hope you do not believe this is the issue that caused me to leave. The bigger issue which I raised some here, is that the type of the cleansing of the sanctuary is fulfilled in my view at Jesus' ascension.

This has wide ranging implications for our sanctuary view, as well as for EGW who endorsed it repeatedly.

I am more than open to, either this topic being expanded to discuss the bigger issue, or a new topic created to discuss the bigger issue.

I disagree. Since at the end of this service both the priest and the people were without sin (at least for some minutes), which sins were these? These were the sins which had just been atoned for. And if they had just been atoned for, they can't be the unconfessed sins, for there is no atonement for unconfessed sins.


I haven’t read the book, but I seem to disagree with Roy Gane’s opinion. Sins didn’t leave out the sanctuary passing from one piece of furniture to another, or from one apartment to another. Sins left out the sanctuary through the priest, who confessed them on the head of the scapegoat.


I disagree. As Angel Rodriguez says, “in the context of atonement, holiness and sin, life and death, purity and impurity, are brought together in an unfathomable, paradoxical relation.”
You will observe that the person who took the flesh of the sin offering outside the camp to burn it was to wash his clothes and bathe his body before returning to the camp (Lev. 16:27, 18). Also, the ashes of the red heifer were mixed with water and sprinkled on a person to cleanse him/her (Num. 19: 11-13). Yet, the person who did the sprinkling was contaminated (verse 21). So the water at the same time cleansed and defiled.


The sacrifice which made the purification of sin possible was already done. This doesn’t mean we are already purified from sin.


Tall, I’m not understanding why you question the church’s position on this point. Of course you agree Jesus did not sprinkle His literal blood in heaven to present it. The presentation of His blood in heaven is symbolic. He presented His sacrifice as a basis for our salvation, and God accepted it. Ellen White says this happened just after His resurrection (DA 790.3).
But this does not mean He didn’t continue to present His blood in His daily intercession for the forgiveness of our sins (symbolized by the daily ministry), and that He doesn't present it as the basis for our forgiveness on the occasion of our judgment (symbolized by the yearly ministry). Or do you question that?


The very text you quoted says:

Heb 9:23 Thus it was necessary for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these rites, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.
Heb 9:24 For Christ has entered, not into holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true things, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf.

This is how the classical commentators interpret this verse:

Barnes - Now to appear in the presence of God for us - As the Jewish high priest appeared before the shekinah, the symbol of the divine presence in the tabernacle, so Christ appears before God himself in our behalf in heaven. He has gone to plead for our salvation; to present the merits of his blood as a permanent reason why we should be saved; Rom_8:34 note; Heb_7:25 note.

Clarke - And hence we may consider that Christ, appearing in his crucified body before the throne, is a real offering of himself to the Divine justice in behalf of man; and that there he continues in the constant act of being offered, so that every penitent and believer, coming unto God through him, find him their ever ready and available sacrifice, officiating as the High Priest of mankind in the presence of God.

Gill - Christ appears in the court of heaven for his elect, by representing their persons; by presenting himself, his blood, sacrifice, and righteousness, before God on their account; by introducing them into the presence of God, and offering up their prayers with the incense of his mediation; by presenting them to himself, and to his Father, and obtaining every blessing for them. And this he does "now", since his entrance;

James, Fausset and Brown, quoting Delitzsch and Alford - “It is enough that Jesus should show Himself for us to the Father: the sight of Jesus satisfied God in our behalf. He brings before the face of God no offering which has exhausted itself, and, as only sufficing for a time, needs renewal; but He himself is in person, by virtue of the eternal Spirit, that is, the imperishable life of His person, now and for ever freed from death, our eternally present offering before God” [Delitzsch in Alford].

Matthew Henry Concise Commentary - but Jesus Christ, by one sacrifice, has destroyed the works of the devil, that believers may be made righteous, holy, and happy. As no wisdom, learning, virtue, wealth, or power, can keep one of the human race from death, so nothing can deliver a sinner from being condemned at the day of judgment, except the atoning sacrifice of Christ;

Vincent’s Word Studies - Now, not only in contrast with the time of the old, typical economy, but also implying a continually-present manifestation, for us, now, as at his first entrance into the heavenly sanctuary.

Jesus was crucified once, but He is an eternal offering.


It doesn’t. What it says is just that Jesus doesn’t need to be offered every year in order to minister His own blood, for His sacrifice has an eternal efficacy.


Were all sins blotted out? Did they cease to exist? How were they purified?


How can being afflicted for sin be a mere prescription? More to follow.


Physical persecution by the little horn has been limited to just some phases of the existence of the church; spiritual opposition occurs most of the time, which makes the really persecuted ones much less obvious. Heavenly intelligences are not omniscient, nor can they read the heart.


The sacrifice part of all the feasts was fulfilled at the cross. The ministration of blood occurs in heaven as it is needed. As long as there is sin, there is the need for the ministration of blood. Blood was needed every day and every year for atonement, but it could only be obtained by killing an animal – so animals had to be killed every day and every year. Jesus’ blood also is needed every day for mediation and on the occasion of the judgment. But Jesus doesn’t need to be killed repeated times because His blood is efficacious for ever.


Not all the spring are, that’s the point. Pentecost was not punctiliar.


All the israelites were judged by God on the day of atonement as to the genuineness of their experience. God considered only the sincerely contrite as part of His people. But this judgment occurred while the atonement was being made in the sanctuary; while the atonement lasted, you could still repent and be forgiven. This does not harmonize with a judgment at or after Christ’s coming.


Leviticus 23:29 For whoever is not afflicted on this same day shall be cut off from his people.
On the day of atonement there was a separation – the sincere ones were distinguished from the insincere ones.

Doesn't the cleansing of the sanctuary represent the work of cleansing that is done prior to Jesus' Second Coming? You must not think this is what it means, if you think it was fulfilled at Jesus' ascension. So your whole view of eschatology in general must be different than the SDA view, it would seem to me.

I am going to address this in two different parts. The first deals with the transfer of sin issue. It will probably be my last on that note since it is not to me the key issue, though I do think it is hard to prove the Adventist transfer by the text.

The second deals with the day of atonement type which to me is the bigger issue.





Yeah, I actually edited that myself since on later reflection it didn't make sense, but it appears you were already answering at the time.

However, the other texts I posted did indicate that less severe sins also could defile.



The sins are cleansed in order from most holy to holy to courtyard.

Either way, you may want to read the book since Gane is the foremost Adventist expert on the question and has studied it under the leading world expert on the question. I found his book “Cult and Character” though I disagreed with parts of it, to be a very interesting read. The more popularized one “Altar Call” is available free online if you just want the gist of it with a lot of devotional application. But I would suggest the other. You can get it on inter-library loan.

http://www.sdanet.org/atissue/books/altar/index.htm



You are trying to make an argument regarding the sin offering based on other offerings. But the sin offering was disposed of in a CLEAN place, and is not said to have required the priest to wash:


Lev 4:12 all the rest of the bull--he shall carry outside the camp to a clean place, to the ash heap, and shall burn it up on a fire of wood. On the ash heap it shall be burned up


And the blood was cleaned in a holy place, which would not be done for an unclean object.

It does apparently mean that He made purification for sins because the text says so.:


Heb 1:3 He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,



Here are some of the other descriptions of the results:


Heb 9:12 he entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption.

Heb 9:26 for then he would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.

Heb 10:11 And every priest stands daily at his service, offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins.
Heb 10:12 But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God
Heb 10:13 waiting from that time until his enemies should be made a footstool for his feet.
Heb 10:14 For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.



So I cannot then depend on my interpretation of the type to say it did not happen if the text says it did.



I do question that.

Jesus fulfilled the part of presenting the blood in God’s presence when He entered in and sat down. He still mediates. I have no issue with that. But the presentation of the blood was done.

The fact that He entered in by blood, which was PART of the yearly ministry indicates that you cannot wait until 1844 to have Him entering, which was the pioneer’s position.

In other words Hebrews says that Jesus was the High Priest, going in by means of His blood, as the earthly priest did yearly to cleanse the heavenly things and put away sin.

What does that sound like? That sounds like the type we apply to something else.

At the very least you have the day of atonement STARTING at the ascension and going until now.

Or I think it indicates that He completed the type of the cleansing, though the type of the scape goat is not spelled out in the text. Therefore we have to speculate on its fulfillment based on the details of the type.

Let me ask this another way.

Which is a closer parallel to the type? Jesus entering into God’s presence to present His blood, or Jesus going over the books?

There were no books in Levit. 16. There was no investigation in the cleansing type. There was cleansing by blood, brought into God’s presence. And Hebrews indicates that it happened at the ascension, or at the very least previous to the author writing the book.



Indeed, and the now was way back in the author’s day was it not? Not in 1844? When did Jesus enter in and present the blood in fulfillment of the yearly High Priestly role?

That is the question.


Is He still there? Sure He is. That is why we have a new and living way. That is why we can boldly approach the throne of grace. But the entering in, parallel to the yearly act of the high priest—which can only be the day of atonement, is completed.




No issue with that. Did you notice it compares it to the presence of God in the Shekinah, which manifested itself above the ark?

That supports the notion of the yearly service.



This one is actually not warranted by the text, since it says He offered, not continues to offer.


Heb 10:12 But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God,


Nor did you quote it from the beginning, because that part shows again that they recognize here the yearly service:


Heb 9:24 -
Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands - He is not gone into the holy of holies of the tabernacle or temple, as the Jewish high priest does once in the year with the blood of the victim, to sprinkle it before the mercy-seat there; but into heaven itself, which he has thus opened to all believers, having made the propitiatory offering by which both he and those whom he represents are entitled to enter and enjoy eternal blessedness.





I agree in part with this. He certainly mediates since His completed entrance and offering.

And again Gill identifies the yearly typical service in the next verse:


as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others; not his own, nor other men's, but the blood of goats and calves; but Christ entered into heaven with his own blood, he having been altar, priest, and sacrifice: the high priest went into the most holy place every year, but Christ has entered into heaven once for all, where he sits down and continues, having done his work effectually.




No issue with that necessarily. He continues to be the offering, but is not continually offered up in the literal sense.

The point being that He historically did one act that He now mediates based on.

And again the JFB commentary indicates entrance into God’s immediate presence, parallel with the Holy of Holies:


not ... into ... holy places made with hands — as was the Holy of Holies in the earthly tabernacle (see on Heb_9:11).
figures — copies “of the true” holiest place, heaven, the original archetype (Heb_8:5).
into heaven itself — the immediate presence of the invisible God beyond all the created heavens, through which latter Jesus passed (see on Heb_4:14; see on 1Ti_6:16).







No issue there.



Yes, He is still there in God’s presence.

But note what else is said:



His offering did not need repetition like the Levitical sacrifices. Offer himself refers rather to Christ's entrance into the heavenly sanctuary and presentation of himself before God, than to his offering on the cross. See on Heb_9:14. The sacrifice on the cross is described by παθεῖν suffer, Heb_9:26, and is introduced as a distinct thought. The point is that, being once in the heavenly sanctuary, Christ was not compelled to renew often his presentation of himself there, since, in that case, it would be necessary for him to suffer often. Each separate offering would necessitate a corresponding suffering.

He offered himself once, not repeatedly.



The results of His sacrifice are ongoing. Either way it is a bit of a semantics game. We both agree that mediation continues based on what Christ did historically at that time. But what you seem to want to avoid is that His entering in WAS the fulfillment of the day of atonement type of the cleansing by blood being brought into God’s presence.

A. High Priest
B. Entered in by means of blood
C. Yearly

What else could it refer to? What other yearly act did the High Priest enter into in this fashion?

And yet this is what we apply to 1844 and the investigative judgment. It is my view that we misapply it. Books and investigation are NOT as accurate fulfillment of the type itself. And Hebrews spells out what the fulfillment was.




Does the text say that Jesus ENTERED into God’s presence by means of His blood, contrasting it with the yearly? Does it indicate He does this in the role parallel to the high priest?


Heb 9:25 Nor was it to offer himself repeatedly, as the high priest enters the holy places every year with blood not his own,

I don’t see how we can say otherwise. What Ellen White described as happening in 1844, Jesus going into the inner apartment as the fulfillment of the DOA type, happened according to Hebrews at His ascension.



Perhaps you need to ask a better question. Does the text say He made purification for sins?

It does.

Therefore whatever it means we have to take what the text says .



It was a prescription.

Can you point in the type itself to any investigation?

The cleansing was cleansing, not investigation.




But He also offered Himself once, entering into God’s presence.

Beyond that you did not address the day of atonement themes attending that entrance. It is inescapable that He ENTERED into God’s presence by means of His blood. There is nothing else it can be.



A. In what way was it not?

B. What is the rationale for two being so and not others? But even if it is ongoing it still started with the entrance at Jesus ascension.





The cleansing part of the type was not the judgment. The judgment came on the basis of the people’s reception of the act. The cleansing OF THE SANCTUARY happened either way. Their benefiting from it was dependent on their response.





Yes, but that was not part of the type of cleansing. The sanctuary was cleansed regardless of those who did not respond. Their response sealed their fate. But the work was done.

Now, was the PRIEST investigating them during the type? No. The High Priest was making cleansing by blood.

The gospel is always bringing either a savor of life unto life or a savor of death unto death. It is always the fragrance of Christ. But our response determines our fate. The same was true here.

Just a note to let everybody know that Rosangela may not be on here over the next couple of weeks, therefore, if you don't hear from her, that is the reason.

I'm not going to discuss this, since you said it is not the key issue for you, but this is just a small comment to point out that, although this might not apply to the regular sin offerings, the sin offering made on the day of atonement did require the person who burned it outside the camp to wash (Lev. 16:27, 28).


But mediation involves the presentation of blood. I don’t know the position of modern protestant commentators, but there seems to be a consensus about this among the classical commentators. Although they see it as a fulfillment of the yearly service, all the classical commentators, as I quoted, agree that Christ is now presenting his blood before God for our forgiveness. Therefore, although Christ did offer Himself once for all, the presentation of His blood did not occur once for all. It must occur continually, as long as there is sin.
As for seeing this mediation as a fulfillment of the yearly service, this cannot be correct, for if Christ is doing the counterpart of the yearly service since His ascension, what was the daily service a type of? The book of Hebrews mentions both services (Heb. 9:6, 7), and makes clear that the priestly ministry on earth is a copy and shadow of Christ’s ministry in the heavenly sanctuary (Heb. 8:4, 5). Since protestants see the yearly service as a type of Christ’s ministry in the Christian era, they see the daily service as a type of the Jewish era. But this cannot be correct, for three reasons: the priests would have served a copy and shadow not of Christ but of themselves, the type would have existed at the same time as the antitype, and the type would have met its fulfillment before Christ’s death.


I don’t see things in this way. Paul’s point may be that every priest who ministers at the sanctuary must minister having blood to offer for the forgiveness of sin. That's why it is said that Christ entered the sanctuary by His blood.

Hebrews 8:3 For every high priest is appointed to offer gifts and sacrifices; hence it is necessary for this priest also to have something to offer.

There is also good evidence that Paul may be referring to the inauguration of the heavenly temple, as others have pointed out, since he speaks about the inauguration of the wilderness tabernacle in this chapter. Ellen White makes a clear reference to the inauguration in this passage:

Still bearing humanity, He ascended to heaven, triumphant and victorious. He has taken the blood of the atonement into the holiest of all, sprinkled it upon the mercy-seat and His own garments, and blessed the people. Soon He will appear the second time to declare that there is no more sacrifice for sin. {ST, April 19, 1905 par. 4}


No, I’m not trying to avoid this fact. What I see in Hebrews is that Paul mixes both the daily and the yearly services in his explanations of Christ’s work, so I don’t see an instance where he is using a comparison with the yearly service, for instance, as evidence that Christ began the counterpart of the yearly service at His ascension. Take a look, for instance, at Hebrews 10:

1 For since the law has but a shadow of the good things to come instead of the true form of these realities, it can never, by the same sacrifices which are continually offered year after year, make perfect those who draw near. [here he refers to the yearly service]
2 Otherwise, would they not have ceased to be offered? If the worshipers had once been cleansed, they would no longer have any consciousness of sin.
3 But in these sacrifices there is a reminder of sin year after year.
4 For it is impossible that the blood of bulls and goats should take away sins.
5 Consequently, when Christ came into the world, he said, "Sacrifices and offerings thou hast not desired, but a body hast thou prepared for me;
6 in burnt offerings and sin offerings thou hast taken no pleasure.
7 Then I said, ‘Lo, I have come to do thy will, O God,’ as it is written of me in the roll of the book."
8 When he said above, "Thou hast neither desired nor taken pleasure in sacrifices and offerings and burnt offerings and sin offerings" (these are offered according to the law), [here he seems to refer to both]
9 then he added, "Lo, I have come to do thy will." He abolishes the first in order to establish the second.
10 And by that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
11 And every priest stands daily at his service, offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. [here he refers to the daily service]
12 But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God,
13 then to wait until his enemies should be made a stool for his feet.
14 For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are sanctified.
15 And the Holy Spirit also bears witness to us; for after saying,
16 "This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, says the Lord: I will put my laws on their hearts, and write them on their minds,"
17 then he adds, "I will remember their sins and their misdeeds no more."
18 Where there is forgiveness of these, there is no longer any offering for sin.
19 Therefore, brethren, since we have confidence to enter the sanctuary by the blood of Jesus,
20 by the new and living way which he opened for us through the curtain, that is, through his flesh,
21 and since we have a great priest over the house of God,
22 let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water.

You will notice that in verses 1-4 Paul uses the yearly service to make the point that the blood of animals cannot take away sins, and that in verse 11 he switches to the daily service to make the same point.


Of course by requiring books you would be requiring too much from a mere type. There are no books to register people’s sins on earth. So how could there be books in Lev. 16? But the Bible is clear that sins are registered in heaven (Dan. 7:10; Rev. 20:12). Besides, it’s clear in Lev. 16 that everybody was judged regarding their sincerity on the day of atonement. And, finally, the notion of books and judgment is also present in the Jewish tradition:

“God, seated on His throne to judge the world, at the same time Judge, Pleader, Expert and Witness, openeth the Book of Records. ... The great trumpet is sounded; a still, small voice is heard; the angels shudder, saying, this is the day of judgment. ... On New Year’s Day the decree is written; on the Day of Atonement it is sealed who shall live and who are to die.” – The Jewish Encyclopedia, vol. 2, p. 286.

As I feel Rosangela has a good grip on this, it's good to see her back here responding to this.

I am personally learning a lot, as I endeavour to sort this all out in my own mind.

Daryl,

Like you, I'm also trying to sort this out in my mind. The Bible is a challenging book.

I have noticed Tall73 looking in on this topic now and then over the past few weeks, therefore, I expect him to be looking here again within the near future.

I also agree with you that the Bible is a challenging book.

AMEN!

If tall73 doesn't respond here soon, I will alert him of the new posts in this topic.

As Tall73 looked at this thread about 20 minutes ago, I expect we will soon be receiving a reply from him.

A. My view is simply that ongoing mediation is on the basis of a previous sacrifice and presentation. Nor did they all seem to see it as you present it. For instance I quoted Gill saying:



as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others; not his own, nor other men's, but the blood of goats and calves; but Christ entered into heaven with his own blood, he having been altar, priest, and sacrifice: the high priest went into the most holy place every year, but Christ has entered into heaven once for all, where he sits down and continues, having done his work effectually.

B. The author of Hebrews also uses the example of the red heifer service in relation to the ongoing work of cleansing.

The red heifer was killed at one point in time, but the water made from it was used in ongoing mediation.

C. Whether it is still ongoing is not really the issue for Adventists. If the yearly type STARTED in 1844 then that undoes the Adventist view. Therefore I am willing to let rest the question of whether Jesus is STILL presenting blood for mediation. I think He already did that. But even if He is still doing so the point is that the text describes this entering in and presentation of blood using the yearly type. If it started then it could not have started in 1844.



It makes reference to the red heifer, the daily, the yearly, the inauguration, etc. Christ was the sacrifice for all of them. And His entrance was a once for all entrance.

Now you say it cannot be but you don't seem to address the very specific allusions to the event in verses 23-25, or the references to time in those passages that were spelled out.

Why do Adventist scholars recognize that verse 24-25 are references to the day of atonement if that is not what is being referenced?



I am not aware of the view you are attributing to protestants. In any case, it is not my view.

Now, please address the specific comments in verses 24-25 that they and I base this on. Why is the day of atonement language used?




A. There is more than one allusion. There is the HIGH Priest, not just every priest. There is the entering by means of blood, which refers back to the day of atonement language at the beginning of the chapter. There is the yearly aspect, etc.

B. why would the author even raise the day of atonement in the first part of the chapter if he did not intend to show that Christ was BETTER than the old system here too? That has been his point throughout the letter.



Indeed, and He did have something to offer. But you can't take "every priest" from Hebrews 8:3 and ignore the High Priest, yearly, with blood references in Hebrews 9.



Undoubtedly the author refers to the inauguration, as I myself assert. He also talks about the red heifer, the daily, and the yearly.

However, in 24-25 he is clearly referring to the day of atonement. There is no other yearly high priestly ministry requiring blood that involves entering into God's presence that is a cleansing of the heavenly things.

Our own scholars have acknowledged this, including Davidson, the biggest proponent of the inauguration view. These were the men entrusted by the denomination to respond to this issue in the Daniel and Revelation Committee Series. They recognized the several DOA allusions.I will post their statements so you can see their reasoning. It is not just one factor, but several.


William Johnsson in "Day of Atonement Allusions". He lists 9:24, etc. as a passage among those that clearly allude to the day of atonement.


The context clearly points to a Day of Atonement allusion (high priest...yearly...blood [cf. 9:7]

He then lists 8 other possible allusions which might point to the Day of Atonement.

Here is Alwyn Salom in his appendix article in the Daniel and Revelation committee series verse 12:


The characteristic service of the Day of Atonement here referred to (cf. vs 7), was located in the inner compartment of the earthly sanctuary.


And on 24:



The reference in the context of the Day of Atonement service of the earthly high priest is not to the outer compartment of the sanctuary.


Richard Davidson, notes that vs. 25 is an unmistakable reference to the day of atonement, though he tries to show that it is a reference to the future. But as my analysis in the previous posts show the historical actions were not in the future, but in the past. s trying to make. What Jesus did went far beyond the old system.


I agree with Young that Hebrews 9:7 and 9:25 refer to Day of Atonement, because of the clear references to “once a year” and “every year” respectively.
Inauguration or Day of Atonement? Andrews University Seminary Studies, Spring 2002, pg. 79




I have already asserted that he references more than one service. That doesn't really help your view as the Adventist contention is that He only was doing one--the daily--until 1844. However, when referring to the entrance it does use day of atonement language. Jesus was fulfilling that. To say that he uses both is nearly admitting my point. He used both because Jesus was fulfilling both. Otherwise there is no reason to speak of His actions in clear day of atonement language. Moreover he says that He has made purification for sins.



The issue is that there is no examination of the blood. There is no stated examination of the sins. There is a cleansing of the sins by bringing the blood into God's presence. This is precisely what we see in the fulfillment in Hebrews 9. It is the Adventist position that reads in more than what is there.




I did not argue otherwise. But that does not make them part of the type in Lev. 16.




Indeed they were judged on their sincerity and compliance with the prescriptions. But the type itself was not about investigation but about cleansing. And that is what we see in Hebrews.





Hebrews describes the actions of Jesus in day of atonement language as our own scholars admit. Jewish tradition certainly does not give much weight to Hebrews, but I must. Therefore I want to examine the text, both in Lev. and Hebrews. It is interesting to look at Jewish tradition to see how they understood it. But it does not change what the text says.

Now because I have encountered a number of different views on this subject in my discussions with Adventists on these things I want to ask a simple question just to see where you are at on this. Some of your above comments left me uncertain.

Do you agree with Johnsson, Davidson, Salom, etc. that vs. 24-25 allude to the day of atonement?

If so we can then turn to your specific understanding of why day of atonement language was used.

It wasn't exactly soon. I don't always feel up to a response as soon as I read it over.

There are clearly related issues that come into play in examining this question. For example, what does one make of the 2300 day prophesy in Daniel? If the Adventist position is correct on that, then doesn't it seem reasonable that the author of Hebrews would be aware of this prophesy, and would have written with that prophecy in mind? So the Adventist positions on Daniel and Hebrews sink or swim together, don't they?

Another example would be the whole question as to whether there is a work of preparation that is needed in reference to Christ's second coming. The futurist position typically requires nothing more than one's having accepted Christ as one's personal Savior, at which point one is ready for Christ's second coming, most commonly seen as the secret rapture. The Adventist position is that as special preparation is necessary, which is prefigured by the preparations made by the Israelites for the Day of Atonement.

So one's perspective on the Second Coming of Christ seems to have an intimate tie in here as well.

A final observation would be that it seems to me what needs to be carefully considered is what is the *meaning* of the ceremony? That's key to understanding the timing. I suppose one could try to infer the meaning from the timing, but the other way around seems to me to be a more logical way to go about it. What is the author of Hebrews talking about? Does he have in mind a special preparation for the antitypical Day of Atonement as fulfillment of the prophecy in Daniel, and tied into Christ's Second Coming? Or is that not something he's concerned about?

Although all the several sacrifices of the OT were fulfilled on the cross, the meaning of each of them is different. The sacrifice of the red heifer was fulfilled on the cross, but there was no entrance in the sanctuary. The morning and evening sacrifices were fulfilled on the cross, but there was no entrance in the sanctuary to present blood, just to offer incense. The sacrifices of the daily sin offerings and of the yearly ritual were also fulfilled on the cross, but the application of the blood must occur as it is needed. The question is, Has the application of Christ’s blood to cleanse the sanctuary from His people’s sins already occurred? Obviously not, for if people still sin, how can there be no sins in the sanctuary?
If the position is taken that the cleansing of the sanctuary occurred as a punctiliar event at Christ’s ascension, this begs the question, Whose sins were there in the sanctuary? Those of the OT people of God? What about the sins of the people of God in the Christian era? Were they there before they were committed?
If you assume the position that the antitypical day of atonement just began at Christ’s ascension, you have the following problem to solve, which I pointed out previously in our discussion: the antitype of the feasts occurred in their order - Passover, wave sheaf, Pentecost. The antitype of Tabernacles will occur at Christ’s coming. Thus, the antitype of the Day of Atonement must logically occur after Pentecost and before Tabernacles. The antitype of the Day of Atonement occurring simultaneously with the antitype of Pentecost is something simply illogical.


Of course it is undeniable that in Heb. 9:25 Paul intends to make a point based on the ritual of the day of atonement. But I don’t see this point as being that the antitypical day of atonement began, or occurred, at Christ’s ascension, for the point he is trying to make is that Christ did not “offer himself repeatedly” (v. 25).
When Christ entered the heavenly sanctuary, He must have His own blood with Himself, to present it as it was needed to make atonement. Again, as Heb. 8:3 says,

“For every high priest is appointed to offer gifts and sacrifices; hence it is necessary for this priest also to have something to offer.”

Paul’s point is not about the moment when Christ would present His blood, but about the fact that blood was necessary for the atonement in the sanctuary in order to secure salvation, and this blood was provided by a once-for-all sacrifice. Paul emphasizes the aspect of the sacrifice in several subsequent verses of the same chapter and of the following chapter: “For then he would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world” (v. 26). “He has appeared once for all at the end of the age to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself” (v. 26). “So Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many” (v. 28). In chapter 10, as I pointed out, Paul uses both the yearly and the daily service to show that Christ’s sacrifice doesn’t need to be repeated (vv. 1 & 11). So, Paul’s point, as I see it, is that Christ was offered once, and that His blood is efficacious for every aspect of His work inside the sanctuary to save man, until salvation is complete and He can leave that place to take His people home:

“So Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him.”


Examination of the blood? This would make no sense at all. Besides, this would give a wrong impression, that is, that the sins were in the blood, when this is not true.
The examination of the sins would be logically implied in the idea of judgment. God would know if you had really repented from all your sins, or if you were still clinging to some of them. That's why people had to "afflict their souls".
About the idea of judgment, it is clearly evident in the ritual. So much so that the Jews also recognize it.

It seems that tall73 has given up discussing this here?

No, i have not given up discussing. But I took an extended break from extensive study or discussion.

We see more than one alteration in the type. For instance, you already seem to admit that pentecost and the dedication of the temple happened together at Jesus' ascension.The dedication did involve entering in. The fact that the sacrifice was once for all and just one not many was a major alteration of the type. There was also a change in priesthood. Once again Jesus made only one sacrifice and one entry. So it is no wonder that anything involving that entry occurred together. In fact all of salvation history coalesced around that series of events of Jesus death, resurrection, ascension, and presentation of His sacrifice in God's presence. It was the provision for cleansing of sins.






Alright, so it seems clear that you see it is a reference to the day of atonement. Now if you admit that it is a day of atonement reference but NOT a reference to His entering then perhaps you need to clarify a bit more.


Heb 9:24 For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us:

The entering into God's is in the past from the author's viewpoint, not in 1844. It is not just referencing a future entrance. It refers back to a previous entrance.





But Adventists DO say the sins were in the blood that defiled the sanctuary. I am speaking of the blood already defiling the temple.

The point is that it is not an investigation that is pictured but a CLEANSING.




It is clear in the aftermath of the ritual. Those who did not accept it were rejected. But the work that the priest did was a cleansing work, not a work of investigation.

Those who reject the cleansing are judged.

Tall,

In my opinion they happened not simultaneously, but in succession – dedication first, then Pentecost.


Yes, Jesus made one entry, in contrast with the high priest’s multiple annual entries in the earthly sanctuary which never could accomplish salvation. Christ, in contrast, entered once in the heavenly sanctuary, and when He leaves it the salvation of His people will be completed. There was, however, no need that everything related to man’s salvation occured simultaneously at the second Christ entered the heavenly sanctuary.


Yes, but it is said that He entered (past) to appear now (present) in the presence of God for us.
As I pointed out previously, many classical commentators, although believing in a day-of-atonement antitype initiated at Christ’s ascension, believed also that Christ’s blood is being continually presented for the forgiveness of sin after He entered the heavenly sanctuary.
Barnes, for instance, says, commenting on Heb. 9:24:
“As the Jewish high priest appeared before the shekinah, the symbol of the divine presence in the tabernacle, so Christ appears before God himself in our behalf in heaven. He has gone to plead for our salvation; to present the merits of his blood as a permanent reason why we should be saved.”

And he says, commenting on Heb. 9:12:
“Having made the atonement, he now pleads the merit of it as a ‘reason’ why sinners should be saved. It is not of course meant that he literally bore his own blood into heaven - as the high priest did the blood of the bullock and the goat into the sanctuary; or that he literally ‘sprinkled’ it on the mercy-seat there, but that that blood, having been shed for sin, is now the ground of his pleading and intercession for the pardon of sin - as the sprinkled blood of the Jewish sacrifice was the ground of the pleading of the Jewish high priest for the pardon of himself and the people.”

So the presentation of blood is not seen by all of them as a once-for-all event, and it is seen by many as a continual event.
As I understand it, Christ entered once for all, but the presentation of blood is continually made as it is needed. It had been made continually since Christ’s ascension for the forgiveness of sin, and after the beginning of the judgment the presentation of blood has also been made continually, now not only for the forgiveness of sin but also for the cleansing of the sanctuary.


Well, I don’t believe that, neither do I know of any modern SDA scholar who does. Ellen White also doesn’t say that.


You speak as if the cleansing excluded the idea of a judgment. This is not so. And the judgment clearly wasn’t something that happened in the aftermath of the ritual. While the cleansing was being made, they were expected to afflict their souls. God knew who had sincerely repented from his/her sins during the ceremony and who hadn’t. It was a judgment invisible to human eyes.