Adventist Pastor Reviews His Faith--Sanctuary

[tall73]

For a few months now I have not been posting on this issue because I wanted to give myself some time to study things out.

Some of you on the forum already know that I have been questioning the Adventist sanctuary teaching. It is more than an academic question for me. I have to resolve these questions or I lose my ministry.

I have been for some time now hoping to find something in the denomination's written works that would answer my questions, but so far I have not. Therefore I am posting this here in hopes that they can be answered. If not then I will have to go to my conference officials and present the evidence to them, and likely be dismissed or resign.

I posted this here because I don't want to discourage those in the Adventist forum who do not like doctrinal discussion, or who do not want to question their beliefs at this time. I also posted it here so that former Adventists or others can give their view.

I will go point by point through my objections, and we can look at them one at a time. I am assuming that those posting here are already familiar with the doctrine.

Please note that I would rather NOT leave the church. I have loved our church and our teachings, and have learned about Christ here. I don't want to leave. But I do have to go where the evidence points. I have always challenged those I study with to follow the truth no matter how hard. So I have to as well.

Please pray for me also. I appreciate prayers. This has been a hard time for our family. I am praying too about what to do.

[tall73]

Point 1:

Does blood defile or does blood cleanse?

I am looking for evidence that blood defiles, as we have held, during the daily service, transferring the sins to the sanctuary.

It seems to me that the lamb, representing Christ, had the sins transferred to it, then died, covering over the sins, taking the sinner's place.

So...is there evidence that sin defile or transfers?

[freeindeed2]

For a few months now I have not been posting on this issue because I wanted to give myself some time to study things out.

Some of you on the forum already know that I have been questioning the Adventist sanctuary teaching. It is more than an academic question for me. I have to resolve these questions or I lose my ministry.

I have been for some time now hoping to find something in the denomination's written works that would answer my questions, but so far I have not. Therefore I am posting this here in hopes that they can be answered. If not then I will have to go to my conference officials and present the evidence to them, and likely be dismissed or resign.

I posted this here because I don't want to discourage those in the Adventist forum who do not like doctrinal discussion, or who do not want to question their beliefs at this time. I also posted it here so that former Adventists or others can give their view.

I will go point by point through my objections, and we can look at them one at a time. I am assuming that those posting here are already familiar with the doctrine.

Please note that I would rather NOT leave the church. I have loved our church and our teachings, and have learned about Christ here. I don't want to leave. But I do have to go where the evidencepoints. I have always challenged those I study with to follow the truth no matter how hard. So I have to as well.

Please pray for me also. I appreciate prayers. This has been a hard time for our family. I am praying too about what to do.
God bless you as you seek the truth under tremendous pressure. I will probably not be posting much on this thread as I resigned less than 1 year ago after a few years of studying, much of which was done with fellow pastors/colleagues in person, by phone, and through email (most of which were very supportive as they understood and had many of the same questions). It's been a year of healing and going through 'detox' after 35 years of indoctrination in the SDA church, and it's been absolutely wonderful.

I will be praying for you as you continue to study. It sounds like you're not afraid to lay it all on the table and trust the Holy Spirit to lead you as you try to make sense of it all (which he has promised to do). You are not alone! Keep up the search, and follow Him wherever he leads. God bless.

[tall73]

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.

Here we see an indication that blood purifies. Now it also mentions the defiling of the temple. But was this done with blood?

It seems the sinfulness of the people defiled the temple. For instance, here we see a record of the temple defiled by someone who did not confess and offer sacrifice at all, but was killed for his own sin:


Lev 20:1 The LORD spoke to Moses, saying,
Lev 20:2 "Say to the people of Israel, Any one of the people of Israel or of the strangers who sojourn in Israel who gives any of his children to Molech shall surely be put to death. The people of the land shall stone him with stones.
Lev 20:3 I myself will set my face against that man and will cut him off from among his people, because he has given one of his children to Molech, to make my sanctuary unclean and to profane my holy name.

[tall73]

I have been discussing with a couple of my friends too. The problem seems to be that those I talk to come to agree with me. I don't know as it is a problem in one sense, but it is for reconciling myself to the church which may eventually prove to be impossible.

Feel free to comment as you desire to, and thank you for your prayers.

God bless


God bless you as you seek the truth under tremendous pressure. I will probably not be posting much on this thread as I resigned less than 1 year ago after a few years of studying, much of which was done with fellow pastors/colleagues in person, by phone, and through email (most of which were very supportive as they understood and had many of the same questions). It's been a year of healing and going through 'detox' after 35 years of indoctrination in the SDA church, and it's been absolutely wonderful.

I will be praying for you as you continue to study. It sounds like you're not afraid to lay it all on the table and trust the Holy Spirit to lead you as you try to make sense of it all (which he has promised to do). You are not alone! Keep up the search, and follow Him wherever he leads. God bless.

[tall73]

Here is a statement from the description of the Day of Atonement service:

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.

Again the issue is all the transgressions and uncleanness of the people. It has defiled the temple. There is no mention of it only being confessed, transferred sins from the daily service during the year.

[Eila]

Please pray for me also. I appreciate prayers. This has been a hard time for our family. I am praying too about what to do.

I'll post later when I have more time, but I did want to say that you and your family are in my prayers. God will see you through this difficult time.

God bless!

[Sophia7]

For perspective, here are a few quotes from Ellen White on the OT sanctuary service, and I will post my comments afterward: The ministration of the earthly sanctuary consisted of two divisions; the priests ministered daily in the holy place, while once a year the high priest performed aspecial work of atonement in the most holy, for the cleansing of the sanctuary. Day by day the repentant sinner brought his offering to the door of the tabernacle and, placing his hand upon the victim's head, confessed his sins, thus in figure transferring them from himself to the innocent sacrifice. The animal was then slain. "Without shedding of blood," says the apostle, there is no remission of sin. "The life of the flesh is in the blood." Leviticus 17:11. The broken law of God demanded the life of the transgressor. The blood, representing the forfeited life of the sinner, whose guilt the victim bore, was carried by the priest into the holy place and sprinkled before the veil, behind which was the ark containing the law that the sinner had transgressed. By this ceremony the sin was, through the blood, transferred in figure to the sanctuary. In some cases the blood was not taken into the holy place; but the flesh was then to be eaten by the priest, as Moses directed the sons of Aaron, saying: "God hath given it you to bear the iniquity of the congregation." Leviticus 10:17. Both ceremonies alike symbolized the transfer of the sin from the penitent to the sanctuary. {GC 418.1}

Such was the work that went on, day by day, throughout the year. The sins of Israel were thus transferred to the sanctuary, and a special work became necessary for their removal.
___________________________________________
Important truths concerning the atonement are taught by the typical service. A substitute was accepted in the sinner's stead; but the sin was not canceled by the blood of the victim. A means was thus provided by which it was transferred to the sanctuary. By the offering of blood the sinner acknowledged the authority of the law, confessed his guilt in transgression, and expressed his desire for pardon through faith in a Redeemer to come; but he was not yet entirely released from the condemnation of the law. On the Day of Atonement the high priest, having taken an offering from the congregation, went into the most holy place with the blood of this offering, and sprinkled it upon the mercy seat, directly over the law, to make satisfaction for its claims. Then, in his character of mediator, he took the sins upon himself and bore them from the sanctuary. Placing his hands upon the head of the scapegoat, he confessed over him all these sins, thus in figure transferring them from himself to the goat. The goat then bore them away, and they were regarded as forever separated from the people. {GC 420.1}
___________________________________________
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. 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
422
the removal, or blotting out, of the sins which are there recorded. 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. 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. {GC 421.3}
My problems with the Adventist interpretation of Leviticus:

One of my fundamental differences with the Adventist sanctuary teaching is the interpretation of Levitical typology and really the whole OT sacrificial system. The book of Leviticus doesn't support the Adventist view of the nature of Jesus' work in the heavenly sanctuary, especially the idea that our sins were transferred to the heavenly sanctuary by His blood, thus defiling it until He allegedly began his ministry in the Most Holy Place in 1844.

The biblical evidence shows that during the daily sacrifices, some of the blood of the sin offering for the individual sinner was placed on the horns of the altar of sacrifice and the rest poured out at the base of the altar; none was taken into the Holy Place (Lev. 4). Only the blood of the offerings for the priests and for the whole community was taken into the Holy Place in the daily ministration. No record of believers' confessed sins was transferred by blood to the holy place. Their specific sins were atoned for and taken away when the sacrifice was offered. They were cleansed by the blood (really by Jesus' blood, which would come later, of course, and which they had only the promise of then). Sins did defile the sanctuary, when they were committed, not when they were supposedly transferred there by blood. The Bible mentions specific sins that polluted the sanctuary (and even the land itself when blood was shed illicitly):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.
___________________________________________

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.
___________________________________________

NU 35:31 " `Do not accept a ransom for the life of a murderer, who deserves to die. He must surely be put to death.
NU 35:32 " `Do not accept a ransom for anyone who has fled to a city of refuge and so allow him to go back and live on his own land before the death of the high priest.
NU 35:33 " `Do not pollute the land where you are. Bloodshed pollutes the land, and atonement cannot be made for the land on which blood has been shed, except by the blood of the one who shed it.
NU 35:34 Do not defile the land where you live and where I dwell, for I, the LORD, dwell among the Israelites.'"
Cleansing from the pollution of sin was accomplished only by the shedding of blood--either when the sinner died for his own sins (and was thus cut off from salvation) or when the sacrifice was offered in his place. The Adventist view is that confessed sins defiled the sanctuary when they were transferred there through the blood of the sin offering. The biblical view is that any sin that defiled the sanctuary did so when the sin was committed (in other words, sin was never transferred there by blood) and that only blood could remove the sin. This happened immediately, not months later on the Day of Atonement. Sins were not kept on record in the sanctuary; they were completely expunged by the blood and no longer polluted the holy places. Blood made anything it was sprinkled on holy (see Lev. 6:24-30); it wasn't a vehicle for transporting sin. Blood removed the pollution of sin from both the sinner and the sanctuary.

Also, Leviticus 16 portrays the Day of Atonement as a time of corporate cleansing of the general unrighteousness and sinfulness of the people, not as the removal of a record of specific sins that had accumulated there, unatoned for, all year long. My conclusion is that EGW and the Adventist Church have completely misinterpreted the Old Testament typology. I believe that the Day of Atonement type met antitype when Jesus ascended to the heavenly sanctuary (that is, heaven itself), entered the heavenly Most Holy Place (the place where God's throne is), and sat down at the right hand of the Father, as Hebrews says. The atonement was completed then. Just as the OT Day of Atonement was the culmination of the whole year of ceremonies, Jesus' entrance into heaven as our High Priest was the climax and the fulfillment of the whole sacrifical system. Hebrews uses not only Day of Atonement imagery but also imagery from many other sanctuary services. Jesus was the reality that all of it pointed to. He had already completed His work as our sacrifice, and He completed His work as our High Priest in presenting Himself in the Most Holy Place when He ascended to heaven and sat down at the right hand of the Father. There was no need for anything more to happen in 1844 to complete Jesus' atonement. It was already finished. Now we have only to wait for our High Priest to come out of the heavenly sanctuary and take us home in the final consummation of the salvation that He has promised us and bought with His blood.
_____________________________________________________________

Concerning EGW’s commentary on Lev. 10:17:

EGW gets around the fact that the blood of the sin offering for an individual was not taken into the sanctuary in the daily service by saying this: In some cases the blood was not taken into the holy place; but the flesh was then to be eaten by the priest, as Moses directed the sons of Aaron, saying: "God hath given it you to bear the iniquity of the congregation." Leviticus 10:17. Both ceremonies alike symbolized the transfer of the sin from the penitent to the sanctuary. {GC 418.1}
Here is what the Bible says:LEV 10:16 When Moses inquired about the goat of the sin offering and found that it had been burned up, he was angry with Eleazar and Ithamar, Aaron's remaining sons, and asked, 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. 18 Since its blood was not taken into the Holy Place, you should have eaten the goat in the sanctuary area, as I commanded."
And in Leviticus 6: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.
These texts do not support the idea that sins were transferred to the sanctuary by the priests’ eating the meat of the sin offering. The Bible says that the meat of any sin offering whose blood was not taken into the Holy Place was most holy and had to be eaten in a holy place and that anything that the blood was spattered on had to be washed in a holy place. The flesh had been given to the priests to make atonement, but it was no longer defiled by the guilt of the sin that had been placed upon it. The blood that had been shed served as an instrument of cleansing, not as a vehicle to transfer sin to the sanctuary. Moreover, the priests never ate blood, so EGW’s typology is inconsistent in claiming that sin was symbolically transferred to the sanctuary through the meat eaten by the priests.

[freeindeed2]

I have been discussing with a couple of my friends too. The problem seems to be that those I talk to come to agree with me.
I found the same thing, and I spoke with 6 different SDA pastors (only one who worked in my conference), and 4 former SDA pastors. The issues are there and they're real.

I don't know as it is a problem in one sense, but it is for reconciling myself to the church which may eventually prove to be impossible.
It may be impossible. Just follow wherever the Holy Spirit leads you (even if it means staying for a while). In my experience it became extremely clear what I was supposed to do, and I did it and I haven't regreted it in any way.

Feel free to comment as you desire to, and thank you for your prayers.
I will post when I feel 'inspired' to do so.

[Jimlarmore]

Point 1:

Does blood defile or does blood cleanse?

I am looking for evidence that blood defiles, as we have held, during the daily service, transferring the sins to the sanctuary.

It seems to me that the lamb, representing Christ, had the sins transferred to it, then died, covering over the sins, taking the sinner's place.

So...is there evidence that sin defile or transfers?

If we look at the book of Hebrews 9:22 the Bible tells us that the blood cleanses us from sin and without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin. However, in Leviticus 16:16 we know that the transgressions were transferred there by the blood shed for sinners thru out the year to the sanctuary until the day of atonement when that ceremony cleansed the sanctuary. So in that respect it was a defiling agent to the sanctuary itself for a year.

So, in truth the blood both defiles and cleanses. As a transfer agent it symbolically takes the sin away from the sinner and transferrs it to the altar in the sanctuary. Then it cleanses the sanctuary once a year on the day of atonement.

Think about it in this way, doesn't water get dirty when we wash in it? So as it cleanses it becomes defiled as it were. The dirt is transferred to the water and leaves the part washed clean representing the sinner. The dirt accumulates if it is left in one place day after day and allowed to dry. When the day of atonement comes it's like spring cleaning. The dirt left over by the many washings gets cleaned away by more water cleaning it all away. Is this too simplistic? What's the other issues? I'm back into the research of the IJ again, so don't do anything rash brother not yet anyway.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

[tall73]

If we look at the book of Hebrews 9:22 the Bible tells us that the blood cleanses us from sin and without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin. However, in Leviticus 16 we know that the transgressions were transferred there by the blood shed for sinners thru out the year to the sanctuary until the day of atonement when that ceremony cleansed the sanctuary. So in that respect it was a defiling agent to the sanctuary itself for a year.

So, in truth the blood both defiles and cleanses. As a transfer agent it symbolically takes the sin away from the sinner and transferrs it to the altar in the sanctuary. Then it cleanses the sanctuary once a year on the day of atonement.

Think about it in this way, doesn't water get dirty when we wash in it? So as it cleanses it becomes defiled as it were. The dirt is transferred to the water and leaves the part washed clean representing the sinner. The dirt accumulates if it is left in one place day after day and allowed to dry. When the day of atonement comes it's like spring cleaning. The dirt left over by the many washings gets cleaned away by more water cleaning it all away. Is this too simplistic? What the other issues?

God Bless
Jim Larmore


Jim,

Thank you for taking some time in my thread.

A. Can you show me a text that says that the sins are transferred there through the blood?

B. What do you do with texts that clearly say those who offered no blood (murderers, etc. who died for their own sins) "defiled" the temple.

If I saw a text that says the blood transferred the confessed sins I would have this objection answered.

[Jimlarmore]

In these two texts it tells us that the blood is for a sin offering.
<DIV class=words-list>Exd 30:10 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Exd/Exd030.html#10) And Aaron 0175 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/words.pl?strongs=0175) shall make an atonement 03722 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/words.pl?strongs=03722) upon the horns 07161 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/words.pl?strongs=07161) of it once 0259 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/words.pl?strongs=0259) in a year 08141 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/words.pl?strongs=08141) with the blood 01818 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/words.pl?strongs=01818) of the sin offering 02403 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/words.pl?strongs=02403) of atonements 03725 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/words.pl?strongs=03725): once 0259 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/words.pl?strongs=0259) in the year 08141 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/words.pl?strongs=08141) shall he make atonement 03722 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/words.pl?strongs=03722) upon it throughout your generations 01755 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/words.pl?strongs=01755): it [is] most <A href="http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/words.pl?strongs=06944"><FONT color=#0000ff>06944

[Sophia7]

The blood made anything that it touched holy:
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.

[Jimlarmore]

I'm confused, Sophia has said that no place does it say in the Bible that any of the sins were transfered to the Holy place. However, we know from reading that blood from daily sacrifices were placed on the golden altar of incense and on the four horns. This altar was in the Holy place of the Mishkan was it not?

God bless
Jim Larmore

[tall73]

I wanted to note that each of the sacrifices is a symbol. In other words, none of them actually took away sin. Hebrews makes this plain:

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.
Heb 10:2 Otherwise, would they not have ceased to be offered, since the worshipers, having once been cleansed, would no longer have any consciousness of sin?
Heb 10:3 But in these sacrifices there is a reminder of sin every year.
Heb 10:4 For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.

Here we see a couple of important points.

A. the offerings themselves did not cleanse. They were not able to. Jesus’ offering cleansed, and they looked forward to it in faith.

B. If the day of atonement really took away their sins each year, why keep doing it? That is what this points out. We always teach that the day of atonement was a symbol of something bigger.


Now my contention is that all of the services were simply illustrations, in different ways, of the same thing—the work of Christ. Some highlighted some points, some another. Undeniably the day of atonement was the high point, as the high priest went into the most holy only on that day.

But the daily too was an illustration of forgiveness.

Let’s put it this way. Why would they need a community sin offering if all the sin was taken care of in the individual offerings? The issue was not transference of sin. The issue was illustrations of forgiveness as a means of faith.

In the same way Hebrews says that the day of atonement was an ANNUAL reminder of sin. It is yet another illustration of the sins of the people that the daily and sin and guilt offerings illustrated as well.

All sins defiled the temple. All sins were an affront to a holy God--even un-confessed ones. But the symbols were meant to inspire confession and faith towards forgiveness.

Therefore all of the sacrifices represented Christ, and all of them had the purpose of pointing out the need for cleansing and the Sacrifice to come.

The sacrifices of the sinner were personal illustrations that had a personal cost.

The daily sacrifices were a communal illustration that reminded them that their sins were as a people, and each one influenced the other.

The day of atonement, like the daily offerings for the people, was another reminder of this communal reality, an annual reminder of the communities’ sins.

They all pointed to Christ. They all pointed to the cleansing in Him.

[tall73]

I'm confused, Sophia has said that no place does it say in the Bible that any of the sins were transfered to the Holy place.

Actually the holy place is defiled, but is it by blood?

The texts say that even murderers, who never made a sacrifice or confessed, defile the temple.



However, we know from reading that blood from daily sacrifices were placed on the golden altar of incense and on the four horns. This altar was in the Holy place of the Mishkan was it not?

Does it say that blood defiles or have we read that into it?

Again, I am looking for a text that says it defiled.

You are assuming that since there is blood there is defilement. Where does it ever say blood defiled?

When it does speak of the defilement of the temple it is due to sins, not confessed sins transferred by blood.

Incidentally, did the transfer happen in the sacrifice by the sinner (sin offering, guilt offering) in your scheme, or in the daily sacrifice for the community?


If I can show that defilement occurred completely apart from the daily service, and nothing about the daily service states there is defilement from it, why should I think it is the daily service that defiles? The symbol of the blood is always to cleanse.

[Sophia7]

I wanted to note that each of the sacrifices is a symbol. In other words, none of them actually took away sin. Hebrews makes this plain:

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.
Heb 10:2 Otherwise, would they not have ceased to be offered, since the worshipers, having once been cleansed, would no longer have any consciousness of sin?
Heb 10:3 But in these sacrifices there is a reminder of sin every year.
Heb 10:4 For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.

Here we see a couple of important points.

A. the offerings themselves did not cleanse. They were not able to. Jesus’ offering cleansed, and they looked forward to it in faith.

B. If the day of atonement really took away their sins each year, why keep doing it? That is what this points out. We always teach that the day of atonement was a symbol of something bigger.


Now my contention is that all of the services were simply illustrations, in different ways, of the same thing—the work of Christ. Some highlighted some points, some another. Undeniably the day of atonement was the high point, as the high priest went into the most holy only on that day.

But the daily too was an illustration of forgiveness.

Let’s put it this way. Why would they need a community sin offering if all the sin was taken care of in the individual offerings? The issue was not transference of sin. The issue was illustrations of forgiveness as a means of faith.

In the same way Hebrews says that the day of atonement was an ANNUAL reminder of sin. It is yet another illustration of the sins of the people that the daily and sin and guilt offerings illustrated as well.

All sins defiled the temple. All sins were an affront to a holy God--even un-confessed ones. But the symbols were meant to inspire confession and faith towards forgiveness.

Therefore all of the sacrifices represented Christ, and all of them had the purpose of pointing out the need for cleansing and the Sacrifice to come.

The sacrifices of the sinner were personal illustrations that had a personal cost.

The daily sacrifices were a communal illustration that reminded them that their sins were as a people, and each one influenced the other.

The day of atonement, like the daily offerings for the people, was another reminder of this communal reality, an annual reminder of the communities’ sins.

They all pointed to Christ. They all pointed to the cleansing in Him.

Yes, I agree that we shouldn't be too literalistic in interpreting these symbols. We shouldn't make the symbols the reality. It wasn't actually the blood of animals that took away sin; the sacrifices pointed in type to the sacrifice of Christ. Jesus is the reality. The Adventist interpretation of these symbols is itself too literalistic, and it completely contradicts the descriptions in Leviticus and the meaning of the symbols.

[tall73]

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.

Jim, I think this text clears it up the most.

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

That dealt with the sin offering of the individual, which was to be eaten by the priest--it was most holy (should not be left around to be profaned etc.)

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

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

[Jimlarmore]

Jim,

Thank you for taking some time in my thread.

A. Can you show me a text that says that the sins are transferred there through the blood?

B. What do you do with texts that clearly say those who offered no blood (murderers, etc. who died for their own sins) "defiled" the temple.

If I saw a text that says the blood transferred the confessed sins I would have this objection answered.

I think we have been having a problem with the server or something. I've tried posting two separate posts and neither one of them has gone thru. I'll try one more time.

I think we may be getting confused in some ways as to the communication problem we have between translating to english from the hebrew. Just because we are having trouble finding the exact phraseology that says the blood was a transfering agent does not mean it wasn't. I think this is where exegesis comes in.

Let's look at the bottom line and then we can go and find some verses.

1. Regardless now of how they got there, the day of atonement was for the cleansing of the sins of the priests and the entire nation of Israel, correct?

Lev 16:16 says " And he shall make atonement for the sanctuary because of the pollution of the sons of Israel and because of their transgressions for all their sins And he shall do for the tabernacle of the congregation which is dwelling in the midst of their pollutions ".

2. In the case where the blood cleanses:

vrs. 19 "And he shall sprinkle on it from the blood seven times and shall cleanse it and shall purify it from the uncleannesses of he sons of Israel. "

3. In the case of where blood defiles the tabernacle:

Lev 1:5 " And he shall kill the son of the herd before the face of Jehovah and the sons of Aaron the priests shall being near the blood and sprinkle the blood on the altar all around which is at the opening of the tabernacle of the congregation. "

This daily sin offering is made outside the tabernacle but the blood is sprinkled on the altar which is part of the tabernacle itself transfering the sin to the tabernacle symbolically. This sin offering was made by blood which was necessary to atone for sin. If it wasn't transfered to the tabernacle where was the sin deposited until the day of atonement?

Where am I going wrong here in my questions?

God Bless
Jim Larmore

[tall73]

Yes there was a server problem for a time.


Where am I going wrong here in my questions?

God Bless
Jim Larmore

Where you are going wrong is that it specifically says (see my previous post above yours here) that the sin offereing makes things HOLY, and the blood from the daily offering atones, not defiles.

The sins of the people, murder, touching dead bodies and not being cleansed, offering children to Molech, etc. defile the sanctuary, EVEN if no offering is made--indeed cannot be made, they atone for their own sin with their life.

[Jimlarmore]

I'm doing some more study on this. I know that an issue of blood defiled a woman ceremonially for 7 days. I will get back with you later.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

[tall73]

I'm doing some more study on this. I know that an issue of blood defiled a woman ceremonially for 7 days. I will get back with you later.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

Yes, but that was not sacrificial blood.

The sacrificial blood represented the sacrifice of Christ which could NEVER defile, but only make holy.

There really is no comparison between menstral blood and the blood that symbolized the sacrifice of Christ.

Please share your study results.

[Jimlarmore]

Yes, but that was not sacrificial blood.

The sacrificial blood represented the sacrifice of Christ which could NEVER defile, but only make holy.

There really is no comparison between menstral blood and the blood that symbolized the sacrifice of Christ.

Please share your study results.

I'm going to play the devil's advocate here and ask you a question. If you get upset by this blame RC_NewProtestants.;) Can you show me anywhere in the levitical laws or Bibilcal text where the ceremonial system pointed directly to the death of the messiah or Christ? Is there anything in the Bible where we know for sure the folks who participated in the ceremonial system knew they were doing this as a shadow of eventual upcoming sacrifice by Christ?

One last question before I go bury myself in study. If the blood wasn't a transfer agent of the sins to the tabernacle/temple what was? The fact that we know the tabernacle needed to be cleansed means it got defiled in some manner. What was the need to sprinkle the blood before altar the in the case of daily sacrifices? Why not just let it fall to the ground as it did when Christ died on the cross? What was the significance of sprinkling the blood if it wasn't symbolic of some kind of transfer? Remember the water analogy?

God Bless
Jim Larmore

[tall73]

I'm going to play the devil's advocate here and ask you a question. If you get upset by this blame RC_NewProtestants.;) Can you show me anywhere in the levitical laws or Bibilcal text where the ceremonial system pointed directly to the death of the messiah or Christ? Is there anything in the Bible where we know for sure the folks who participated in the ceremonial system knew they were doing this as a shadow of eventual upcoming sacrifice by Christ?



It is a fair question :)

In the raising up of the snake in the wilderness we have some small hints. In the accounts of Isaiah we get a fuller picture. But I think it is fair to say they were not aware of that connection.


However, that is a different situation than when it specifically says it ATONES or cleanses and you say it defiles and we just don't see where it does it.


One last question before I go bury myself in study. If the blood wasn't a transfer agent of the sins to the tabernacle/temple what was? The fact that we know the tabernacle needed to be cleansed means it got defiled in some manner.
Have you read all of the posts in this thread?

Sophia posted these earlier:

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.




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 people defiled the temple by their wicked actions. Even those who never offered a sacrifice defiled the temple. Therefore we DO see a direct text indicating how defilement happens--by the sins themselves, at the time of the commission. But we do not see any text suggesting your idea of defilement by blood.


What was the need to sprinkle the blood before altar the in the case of daily sacrifices? Why not just let it fall to the ground as it did when Christ died on the cross? What was the significance of sprinkling the blood if it wasn't symbolic of some kind of transfer? Remember the water analogy?
It was to make atonement.

6:30 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.

Its purpose was not to defile, but again to make atonement.

All of these offered atonement.

Read Leviticus chapter 4. You will be surprised to see how many times it ssays something like this:

Lev 4:26 And all its fat he shall burn on the altar, like the fat of the sacrifice of peace offerings. So the priest shall make atonement for him for his sin, and he shall be forgiven.

If it says the sinner is forgiven, why do we say he is not?

[tall73]

Another question --notice the following portion of the Day of Atonement Ritual:

Lev 16:6 "Aaron shall offer the bull as a sin offering for himself and shall make atonement for himself and for his house

If the daily service transferred his sins, why does he need yet another sacrifice for himself?

Again we see that these were all symbols of the one sacrifice. Jesus' blood cleanses.

[tall73]

A couple more texts that describe how the sanctuary was defiled:

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.


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.

Notice in the latter the defilement happened before any offering was presented, and indeed the offering was useless.

[OntheDL]

Point 1:

Does blood defile or does blood cleanse?

I am looking for evidence that blood defiles, as we have held, during the daily service, transferring the sins to the sanctuary.

It seems to me that the lamb, representing Christ, had the sins transferred to it, then died, covering over the sins, taking the sinner's place.

So...is there evidence that sin defile or transfers?

Sin defiles. Blood cleanses. I don't think one will find a EGW's quote that says blood defiles the sanctuary.

It's late here on the east coast. I'd sugguest Tall and Sophia stick to one subject at a time. Sophia's first post is almost as if she's venting. I'm not sure how to respond to that. I definitely don't have all the answers. I just read through 3 pages of the posts. I have some comments. Please give me some time to respond to the issues.

[tall73]

Sin defiles. Blood cleanses. I don't think one will find a EGW's quote that says blood defiles the sanctuary.

But you will find a number of them that say that the blood transfers the sins, which you dont' find in the Scriptures. Rather you find the sins of the people, whether confessed or not, defile the temple. And the blood always cleanses. Not only that but it atones, and the sinner is forgiven. The sin offering is most holy, and anything it touches is not defiled but made holy also.



It's late here on the east coast. I'd sugguest Tall and Sophia stick to one subject at a time. Sophia's first post is almost as if she's venting. I'm not sure how to respond to that. I definitely don't have all the answers. I just read through 3 pages of the posts. I have some comments. Please give me some time to respond to the issues.I have stuck to one subject, that of the blood so far.

As to venting, I didn't read it that way. Looked like information to me.
Take as much time as you want.

[OntheDL]

But you will find a number of them that say that the blood transfers the sins, which you dont' find in the Scriptures. Rather you find the sins of the people, whether confessed or not, defile the temple. And the blood always cleanses. Not only that but it atones, and the sinner is forgiven.


No dispute here.

The blood was transfered to the sanctuary, in figure(as in EGW's writing), for the record of the forgiven sins.

Sins were forgiven but the record not forgotten.


The sin offering is most holy, and anything it touches is not defiled but made holy also.

I have stuck to one subject, that of the blood so far.

I have some comments on this. But let me go over your other posts to see what you meant...

BTW no EGW's writing says sin offerings defile.

Atonement means to restore to the original condition. This would not happen until after judgment is finished/after the Day of Atonement. This should be a later discussion.

I think I see some unfortunate misunderstanding here: perceived what was said. Let me work it some more tomorrow. It's been a long day.

[Eila]

I'll post later when I have more time, but I did want to say that you and your family are in my prayers. God will see you through this difficult time.

God bless!

Just wanted to say that I wish you well on your studies, but I do not feel I should be part of this discussion at this time.

God bless!

[tall73]

No dispute here.

The blood was transfered to the sanctuary, in figure(as in EGW's writing), for the record of the forgiven sins.

Sins were forgiven but the record not forgotten.


I have some comments on this. But let me go over your other posts to see what you meant...

BTW no EGW's writing says sin offerings defile.

Atonement means to restore to the original condition. This would not happen until after judgment is finished/after the Day of Atonement. This should be a later discussion.

I think I see some unfortunate misunderstanding here: perceived what was said. Let me work it some more tomorrow. It's been a long day.


The Scriptures say atonement was made and he is forgiven.

Lev 4:29 And he shall lay his hand on the head of the sin offering and kill the sin offering in the place of burnt offering.
Lev 4:30 And the priest shall take some of its blood with his finger and put it on the horns of the altar of burnt offering and pour out all the rest of its blood at the base of the altar.
Lev 4:31 And all its fat he shall remove, as the fat is removed from the peace offerings, and the priest shall burn it on the altar for a pleasing aroma to the LORD. And the priest shall make atonement for him, and he shall be forgiven.

And again:

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. It says it makes holy whatever the flesh touches. You say it transfers sin. Would you say that "makes holy" is a good way to convey transferring sin?

B. It says the blood makes atonement, you say atonement happens at the end.

C. No text has been offered that shows language of transfer, except those that show that sins defile, before a sacrifice is even made, and even in cases where a sacrifice does no good.

[Jimlarmore]

If the sin was forgiven and forgotten then there would be no need to cleanse it once a year. The fact that it was cleansed meant it got defiled by all of the sins comitted. If you are saying the blood wasn't the agent of transfer fine, maybe the church does need to change it's perspective.

By the same token when we are justified now all of our sins are forgiven by the blood of Christ but if we back slide and are eventually lost then we will pay for all of our sins in the end so they have not been forgotten fully even now.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

[Jimlarmore]

Let's just say you are totally right on all of this Tall73. You have expressed concerns that this may cost you your pastor's position in our church. Why do you feel this way? The Bible makes it clear we should always be in a position to be corrected and instructed in righteousness. It could be that the Lord led you to this to help make a correction in the way our church perceives this.

With that said, I don't see any problem at this point with this particular aspect of the day of atonement or the sanctuary study that will nullify the IJ.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

[tall73]

If the sin was forgiven and forgotten then there would be no need to cleanse it once a year. The fact that it was cleansed meant it got defiled by all of the sins comitted. If you are saying the blood wasn't the agent of transfer fine, maybe the church does need to change it's perspective.

By the same token when we are justified now all of our sins are forgiven by the blood of Christ but if we back slide and are eventually lost then we will pay for all of our sins in the end so they have not been forgotten fully even now.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

A. If we fall back we are lost because we did not accept our one possibility to be saved which is Christ. We don't need all of our sins back, just the sin of rejecting Christ is sufficient. I am not arguing here for once saved always saved, and I firmly believe we must endure to the end.

B. If you say that they are forgiven why do we need an annual cleansing? Let me ask it the other way. If the priest is forgiven why does he need an additional sin offering for himself on the day of atonement? If the sins are transferred by the individual's offering, why the daily offerings for the people?

Again they are all pointing to the same thing. They are daily, personal, communal, yearly reminders of the cleaning that comes only from God.

Moreover, there is a point you are missing apparently. The sins that defiled included the sins of those who never confessed. They "atoned" for their own sin by being slain in severe cases, but not in other cases, and this was not always enforced. Idolatry was one of the things that also led to profaning the temple.

So again, my way of thought explains why there would yet be sin in the temple, but in reality the annual is a "reminder" of sins as the Hebrews text says. It is another illustration of the same point as the personal sacrifices and daily.

But your approach

A. Does not explain how sins get there from those who never offer a sacrifice as the text clearly says.

B. Does not have a text explaining that the blood transfers sin, but instead says it atones and forgives, and makes holy.


And did Jesus die more than once, the first time to transfer, the second to cleanse? No, He was offered once, ascended to heaven, ministered His blood and now sits at the right hand of the Father.

The blood has been offered. Forgiveness is there if we approach Him for it.

[tall73]

Let's just say you are totally right on all of this Tall73. You have expressed concerns that this may cost you your pastor's position in our church. Why do you feel this way? The Bible makes it clear we should always be in a position to be corrected and instructed in righteousness. It could be that the Lord led you to this to help make a correction in the way our church perceives this.

With that said, I don't see any problem at this point with this particular aspect of the day of atonement or the sanctuary study that will nullify the IJ.

God Bless
Jim Larmore



I have not read Ford's book , etc. but I suspect this is not the first time that some have heard these things.

But if the offereings are all pointing to the same sacrifice and the same ministration of blood, and if confession leads to forgiveness and atonement then it certainly does change the IJ as we have seen it.

And unfortunately this is just point 1.

[freeindeed2]

I have not read Ford's book , etc. but I suspect this is not the first time that some have heard these things.
Sorry, tall73. It's not the first time (which, of course you know already).:) And Ford book/paper is a good long read that goes deeper than I would care to go again at this point, but you should read it, or at least parts of it, if you have the time.

But if the offereings are all pointing to the same sacrifice and the same ministration of blood, and if confession leads to forgiveness and atonement then it certainly does change the IJ as we have seen it.
Yes it does. I'm not sure how many here have ever tried to go to the conference brethren and seek a 'change' in SDA understanding of anything, but it's an eye-opening experience. Some are just ignored, some are met with sympathetic ears because they (conference officials) know of the problems that exist, and some are met with a message telling them to 'stuff it' and 'shut up'. Jobs are threatened, or people get fired, and some are asked to choose between EGW or the Bible. And most of the time the 'lay-people' have NO CLUE what goes on, and in the event that someone is 'let go' (fired), a conference official is right there to explain it away and character assassinate if necessary. I've seen it too many times in too many places, which is why many pastors just resign and state their reasons for doing so after being led their decisions by the Holy Spirit. IF you ever do that duck on the way out so you don't get hit by many of the stones that would be headed your way (proverbial, of course:)).

And unfortunately this is just point 1.
Yeah...I remember, and there are still a few things left on the table for me to be searched out. Have you made a list?

[tall73]

Yes, there is a list. Ford's book was ordered a while back and should be arriving any day. He uses some slow shipping. I wanted to read the pro-denominational material first. But I figured that I tend to find more flaws in views when looking at the proponent's arguments, so in reading Ford I might find some things that would be helpful.


As to trying to persuade the bretheren, I was struck with this statement from Ministry Magazine, October 1980, regarding a meeting with Ford, Wilson, etc.

The discussion turned to the matter of "new light" and the counsel of the Lord that such light will not contradict or negate light already given. The idea was set forth that one must submit "new light" to brethren of experience and then yield to their judgment, for there is safety in a multitude of counselors. Pastor Wilson commented that Dr. Ford did not appear really to accept this philosophy, that he required evidence before changing an opinion, and has set up his own criteria of what is acceptable evidence--criteria that exclude the writings of Ellen G. White as being doctrinally authoritative.

Ie. He wanted Bible evidence and would not take Mrs. White's statements as a substitute.

[tall73]

Point 2:

Did Jesus enter into the most holy place at His ascension?

[freeindeed2]

Yes, there is a list. Ford's book was ordered a while back and should be arriving any day. He uses some slow shipping. I wanted to read the pro-denominational material first. But I figured that I tend to find more flaws in views when looking at the proponent's arguments, so in reading Ford I might find some things that would be helpful.


As to trying to persuade the bretheren, I was struck with this statement from Ministry Magazine, October 1980, regarding a meeting with Ford, Wilson, etc.

The discussion turned to the matter of "new light" and the counsel of the Lord that such light will not contradict or negate light already given. The idea was set forth that one must submit "new light" to brethren of experience and then yield to their judgment, for there is safety in a multitude of counselors. Pastor Wilson commented that Dr. Ford did not appear really to accept this philosophy, that he required evidence before changing an opinion, and has set up his own criteria of what is acceptable evidence--criteria that exclude the writings of Ellen G. White as being doctrinally authoritative.

Ie. He wanted Bible evidence and would not take Mrs. White's statements as a substitute.
There is no substitute, and why would we want one?

When I asked about there being a list, I meant not just for this issue of the Sanctuary and then the IJ, but others as well? For me it was helpful to write them all down and the questions I had with each item on the list.

[tall73]

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, perhaps back to Judaism, in the face of persecution, are in great danger.

It would be completely illogical for him to raise the high point of the typology and then go on to conclude that Jesus did not actually fulfill it. He does show that Jesus fulfilled not only the highpoint, but the whole thing.

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.

A. Christ entered ONCE for all into the holy, SECURING ETERNAL REDEMPTION. He went once for all, securing redemption. This says nothing about a later completion of the atonement. The one act of Christ is all there will be—sacrifice and ministration. In that act He fulfilled the whole series of rituals.

B. It mentions that Jesus is the High Priest, and entered in by means of His own blood, not that of goats and calves. The offerings on the day of atonement, for the priest to enter the Most Holy Place, was first a young bull for his own sin, and then the Lord’s goat. 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.

C. 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.

D. Exodus 24 relates the initial covenant agreement with the people which included the blood of bulls and is referenced in the sprinkling section. amplified on shortly.

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.

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 is clearly a reference to the inauguration service. So far we have seen reference to the day of atonement, red heifer cleansing, and the inauguration service. It is conglomerate of all the services, as they all pointed to the same reality.

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. 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.

Here we see a continuation of the inauguration service, and a blending with the day of atonement. The purification references was that earlier of Moses, and its fulfillment. But now the scene changes.

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 happenened on the day of atonement.

B. He appeared ONCE at the end of the ages to put away sin. There is no more to do.

C. He appeared in God’s presence. This is clearly the most holy place. Some have tried to argue that God’s presence is not in the most holy…but then what is it that they claim is more holy than God? But more than this we have clear statements that God would meet with them above the mercy seat. This is an undeniable reference to Christ entering the most holy place.

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.

These texts make it clear that God met with them above the mercy seat. This is a symbol of God’s throne.

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.

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.


A note on τα ἁγια:

The term is generally acknowledged to be neuter plural. For now I will simply quote the Daniel and Revelation Committee Series report from “Issues in the Book of Hebrews”:

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).

[OntheDL]

The Scriptures say atonement was made and he is forgiven.

Lev 4:29 And he shall lay his hand on the head of the sin offering and kill the sin offering in the place of burnt offering.
Lev 4:30 And the priest shall take some of its blood with his finger and put it on the horns of the altar of burnt offering and pour out all the rest of its blood at the base of the altar.
Lev 4:31 And all its fat he shall remove, as the fat is removed from the peace offerings, and the priest shall burn it on the altar for a pleasing aroma to the LORD. And the priest shall make atonement for him, and he shall be forgiven.

And again:

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.

I'm not arguing that the sin was atoned for, and sinner was forgiven.


A. It says it makes holy whatever the flesh touches. You say it transfers sin. Would you say that "makes holy" is a good way to convey transferring sin?

These two are seperate symbolisms. The priests that minister the service in sanctuary has dual roles: the priest presents both Christ and the believer.

Let's back track a little bit, I think we are out of sequence...

When the penitent brought the sin offering with him, he had the sin. Then the sin offering took in place and become sin. Does the bible say Christ became sin for us? So did the sin transfer from the sinner to the animal?

Yes, the blood of the animal that typified Christ cleansed. And sinner was forgiven. But the record of the sin wiped away by the act? No. It was recorded and preserved for judgment.

By partaking of the flesh, the priest identified with the victim and his oneness with the sinner whose place it (the victim) had taken.

Christ Himself was the victim, and Himself was the priest.

When the priest typifying Christ brought the blood into the holy place, the blood finger prints were imprinted on the horns of the golden altar. The blood was sprinkled onto the inner veil. This act records the price of the random paid.


B. It says the blood makes atonement, you say atonement happens at the end.


To atone means to make right. The believer has to continually make right with God. Justification and sanctification are continual processes. The final atonement is made on the Day of Atonement was believers are glorified, and guilty(satan) is indicated.


C. No text has been offered that shows language of transfer, except those that show that sins defile, before a sacrifice is even made, and even in cases where a sacrifice does no good.

Are you questioning the transfer of the blood or the transfer of the sin?

[tall73]

I'm not arguing that the sin was atoned for, and sinner was forgiven.


Yet you say atonement is something that happens at the end. Your argument is not consistent.



When the penitent brought the sin offering with him, he had the sin. Then the sin offering took in place and become sin. Does the bible say Christ became sin for us? So did the sin transfer from the sinner to the animal? No problem there.



Yes, the blood of the animal that typified Christ cleansed. And sinner was forgiven. But the record of the sin wiped away by the act? No. It was recorded and preserved for judgment. You have not shown that. Nor have you shown how cleansed sins can be transmitted to the sanctuary, or how the ONE act of Christ at one point transfers and another point cleanses.

The blood cleansed.



By partaking of the flesh, the priest identified with the victim and his oneness with the sinner whose place it (the victim) had taken.

Christ Himself was the victim, and Himself was the priest.

Ellen says the sins were carried by the priest into the temple. Do you think that this is what Christ did? Did Christ die for our sin and then still carry it to the temple where He transferred sins to the temple? No. He died, and then presented His atoning blood, not defilling or transferring sins, but cleansing. He presented His blood to cleanse.



When the priest typifying Christ brought the blood into the holy place, the blood finger prints were imprinted on the horns of the golden altar. The blood was sprinkled onto the inner veil. This act records the price of the random paid.
You say it was for records. The text doesn't. It says it was for atonement.


To atone means to make right. The believer has to continually make right with God. Justification and sanctification are continual processes. The final atonement is made on the Day of Atonement was believers are glorified, and guilty(satan) is indicated.
The final atonement was already made when Christ made His once for all sacrifice for sin and sat down at the right hand of God. The sinner avails himself of it through confession.


Are you questioning the transfer of the blood or the transfer of the sin?I am noting that the text says the blood atones, not that it transfers sins. These records and transfers are your theory to prove with a text. The text says the blood atones.

The texts also note that sins committed defile the temple, even when no sacrifice is offered. Do you agree with this?

[Jimlarmore]

B. If you say that they are forgiven why do we need an annual cleansing? Let me ask it the other way. If the priest is forgiven why does he need an additional sin offering for himself on the day of atonement? If the sins are transferred by the individual's offering, why the daily offerings for the people?

I don't think the Bible tells us that the priest is forgiven before he offers a sin offering for himself does it? Please lead me to the text that says that. The sin offerings offered daily allowed a build up of sins in the sanctuary whether it was the blood transferring it or not the accumulation of defilement occurred over the year. The annual day of atonement was for the cleansing of the sanctuary for those accumulated sins.


Moreover, there is a point you are missing apparently. The sins that defiled included the sins of those who never confessed. They "atoned" for their own sin by being slain in severe cases, but not in other cases, and this was not always enforced. Idolatry was one of the things that also led to profaning the temple.

I didn't miss it I'm still trying to fully understand it. If there are sins transferred to the tabernacle that no one offered a sacrifice for thus are not forgiven then what happens to those sins on the day of atonement? If they are not forgiven then that means the tabernacle was never fully cleansed, right?



But your approach

A. Does not explain how sins get there from those who never offer a sacrifice as the text clearly says.

Neither does yours my friend, other than to say they just get there when the sin is comitted.


B. Does not have a text explaining that the blood transfers sin, but instead says it atones and forgives, and makes holy.

I don't think there is any question about the blood atoning and making holy the things it is applied to. However, I still think we are dealing with a matter of semantics here and may be trying to skew an issue uneededly. When the blood cleanses or makes holy how does it do that? Isn't it the act of death by the victim that is a propitiation for the sin? The blood only comes when the act of dying takes place, right. It's not intrinsically the blood per se' that does anything it's what the blood represents, death. The Bible says the wages of sin is death. The Bible also says there is life in the blood and physiologically so it has but when the body looses it in the act of dying it represents a death has occurred. That is the symbolic significance of the blood in my opinion. I don't think there was ever any blood offered from an animal that was just wounded to get it. The animal had to die, just as our savior had to die to be a propitiation for our sins.


God Bless
Jim Larmore

[tall73]

I don't think the Bible tells us that the priest is forgiven before he offers a sin offering for himself does it? Please lead me to the text that says that.


We have already looked at it in Leviticus 4 where the sin offering is prescribed, a nd details are given for the priest.

So let me re-phrase in a way you might appreciate:

In your view, were the sins of the priest tranferred to the temple during the daily?

If so another sacrifice for himself is not necessary before the cleansing.



The sin offerings offered daily allowed a build up of sins in the sanctuary whether it was the blood transferring it or not the accumulation of defilement occurred over the year. The annual day of atonement was for the cleansing of the sanctuary for those accumulated sins.
Sorry, you conflated two different things.

There were the daily offerings for ALL THE PEOPLE, and then there were individual offerings (sin offerings, guilt offerings, etc.). Which one transferred?



I didn't miss it I'm still trying to fully understand it. If there are sins transferred to the tabernacle that no one offered a sacrifice for thus are not forgiven then what happens to those sins on the day of atonement? If they are not forgiven then that means the tabernacle was never fully cleansed, right?

Actually it means that Christ cleanses all defilement. Siome are forgiven, some atone with their death. But the cleansing of the temple is simply a recognition of God's cleansing of sin. Without Christ's death the Israelites could never dwell anywhere near God.


Neither does yours my friend, other than to say they just get there when the sin is comitted. Of course! That is what the text says. Just as it says the land is defiled. The temple, the land, everything is defiled by the presence of sin in the camp.

The advantage my view has over yours is the text SAYS what defiles the sanctuary. It never says the blood transmits sin.




I don't think there is any question about the blood atoning and making holy the things it is applied to. However, I still think we are dealing with a matter of semantics here and may be trying to skew an issue uneededly. When the blood cleanses or makes holy how does it do that? Isn't it the act of death by the victim that is a propitiation for the sin? The blood only comes when the act of dying takes place, right. It's not intrinsically the blood per se' that does anything it's what the blood represents, death. The Bible says the wages of sin is death. The Bible also says there is life in the blood and physiologically so it has but when the body looses it in the act of dying it represents a death has occurred. That is the symbolic significance of the blood in my opinion. I don't think there was ever any blood offered from an animal that was just wounded to get it. The animal had to die, just as our savior had to die to be a propitiation for our sins. Of course it did. But the blood cleansed by the death of the One who offered His perfect Life and then presented it in God's presence, opening a new and living way to the presence of God. And once that was done, what are you still looking for? It is done. He sat down.


Jim, what you are not dealing with is NOWHERE is there any text that says the blood transfers sins. It just doesn't say it.

On the other hand the Scriptures state that sins in the nation defile the temple. I don't need to show any more than that. But if your contention, and the Adventist one is that it CONFESSED sins through the blood, leaving a record then we ought to see

A. that blood transfers sins--waiting for that text.
B. only confessed sins pollute--waiting for that text.
C. that there is a record.--waiting for that text.

If you think it is a technicality then you don't realize how integral this whole question is to the Adventist teaching. If nothing else a view that does not have the blood transferring the sins would bring EGW into question.

But more than that it calls into question the role of Christ in the first apartment.

One view sees a two-tiered ministry, two "phases." This is simply not a biblical notion. The Day of atonement was not a "phase" but a day--a holy day, the culmination of the types, an annual reminder of sin. But Jesus did not minister in phases with many sacrifices, but offered one sacrifice, ministered it and sat down.


The one Sacrifice fulfilled it, and the daily, and the red heifer, etc. Read the Hebrews section and it should tie it together.

[freeindeed2]

To atone means to make right. The believer has to continually make right with God.
This is not right. We are made right with God when we believe in Jesus Christ to take away our sins, regardless of who we are or what we've done (Rom 3). We don't get re-converted every day anew like some Groundhog Day movie. We have either been made new creations by the Spirit of Christ, or we have not.

Justification and sanctification are continual processes.
Again, we have either been justified AND sanctified by Christ, or we have not. There's no middle ground. We can't be 'half way' justified or 'part way' sanctified. Either we stand before God perfect (because of Christ's righteousness), or we cannot stand before God (because we have no righteousness).

1 Cor.1:2 "To the church of God which is at Corinth, to those who have been sanctified in Christ Jesus, saints by calling, with all who in every place call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, their Lord and ours:" (NASB)

Heb 10:10 "By this will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all." (NASB)

Jesus IS our justification and our sanctification.

1 Cor. 1:30, 31 "But by His doing you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification, and redemption, so that, just as it is written, "LET HIM WHO BOASTS, BOAST IN THE LORD."

The final atonement is made on the Day of Atonement was believers are glorified, and guilty(satan) is indicated.
Atonement has already been made, once for all time. In fact, the High Priest (Jesus) SAT DOWN. Find me a place where the earthly High Priest ever sat down. There were NO chairs.

[tall73]

Atonement has already been made, once for all time. In fact, the High Priest (Jesus) SAT DOWN. Find me a place where the earthly High Priest ever sat down. There were NO chairs.

Indeed, Christ is pictured as interceeding from the right hand of God where He sat since completing that work:

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."

[tall73]

Note this statement from EGW in Spiritual Gifts, Vol. 1, page 171-172

I saw that the nominal churches, as the Jews crucified Jesus, had crucified these messages, and therefore they have no knowledge of the move made in heaven, or of the way into the Most Holy, and they cannot be benefited by the intercession of Jesus there. Like the Jews, who offered their useless sacrifices, they offer up their useless prayers to the apartment which Jesus has left, and Satan, pleased with the deception of the professed followers of Christ, fastens them in his snare, and assumes a religious character, and leads the minds of these professed christians to himself, and works with his power, his signs and lying wonders.

Here Ellen White states that Jesus could not intercede for most Christians because they were praying to the wrong apartment. The deep irony here is that the "nominal" churches did not think that Jesus was in the first apartment to start with, but in God's presence, which would correspond to the earthly second apartment!

[freeindeed2]

Note this statement from EGW in Spiritual Gifts, Vol. 1, page 171-172

I saw that the nominal churches, as the Jews crucified Jesus, had crucified these messages, and therefore they have no knowledge of the move made in heaven, or of the way into the Most Holy, and they cannot be benefited by the intercession of Jesus there. Like the Jews, who offered their useless sacrifices, they offer up their useless prayers to the apartment which Jesus has left, and Satan, pleased with the deception of the professed followers of Christ, fastens them in his snare, and assumes a religious character, and leads the minds of these professed christians to himself, and works with his power, his signs and lying wonders.

Here Ellen White states that Jesus could not intercede for most Christians because they were praying to the wrong apartment. The deep irony here is that the "nominal" churches did not think that Jesus was in the first apartment to start with, but in God's presence, which would correspond to the earthly second apartment!
Keep digging. The rabbit hole runs really deep.:)

[Jon0388g]

Tall I've been reading your posts and have a couple of points/questions to pose:


You stress that blood atones, and I think we are all agreed on this. But, what is atoned? Is it the sin, or the sinner? Lev 4:26 states "....Thus the priest shall make atonement for him in regard to to his sin, and he will be forgiven." I think all verses follow this same drift (I stand under correction). So, it is the sinner who is atone for in regard to the sin committed, the sin itself is not yet "atoned." Does this bare any significance in the fact that "atonement" in its broadest sense is not complete at the sacrifice?

I also thought of the verse in 2 Corinthians which states Jesus became sin for us. If you ever needed an example of the transfer of sin, you have it at Calvary. So, since we can see that sin is transferred somehow, it leads naturally to the question of how. You disagree that the blood does not transfer sin, it only "makes holy." Like the point above, I think the blood does "make holy" the person it is shed for - as all your quoted texts prove. Is the blood itself now holy? Why does the priest sprinkle blood within the sanctuary? What significance does this hold if not to transfer sin?

We see most clearly from three sources that the sanctuary itself needed atonement. Lev 16, Exodus 28:38 "the iniquity of the holy things," Hebrews 9:23 "the copies of the things in the heavens to be cleansed..." However sin defiles the sanctuary, it defiles the sanctuary, and it needs to be cleansed also. This happens on Yom Kippur when the sin of the sanctuary in regard to the impurities of Israel (the transferred sins) are totally atoned for, and the scapegoat has all of these sins confessed over him. He is then sent into the wilderness. Doesn't this signify the final atonement for sin itself? Sin now has no affiliation with Israel or the sanctuary once confessed over the scapegoat. Isn't this a two-fold atonement?

You raise a good point about sin defiling the sanctuary even with no sacrifice. This does seem strange. But doesn't this bring more problems to the table than it solves? Firstly, on the day of Atonement, the sin of the sanctuary in regard to the sins of Israel are atoned for - does this imply that the person who sinned (without sacrificing) is forgiven? Their sin would be atoned for also at Yom Kippur?! Secondly, why does the Sanctuary become defiled for an unconfessed sin? The sin unconfessed is still on the head of the sinner - nowhere in the Bible is a committed sin "shared" between two parties, as the texts you've quoted seems to convey. But, it says what it says: we should look into this further before throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
I don't want you to get discouraged over this. I think it should be enjoyable and seen as a challenge to really dig into these issues and uncover the Truth that is in Christ Jesus. As He said, "You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that testify about Me." John 5:39

Jon:)


P.S: Your second point is a bit easier to deal with, hopefully. I've studied some very solid evidence for that one, but we should deal with point 1 first.

[tall73]

Tall I've been reading your posts and have a couple of points/questions to pose:
You stress that blood atones, and I think we are all agreed on this. But, what is atoned? Is it the sin, or the sinner? Lev 4:26 states "....Thus the priest shall make atonement for him in regard to to his sin, and he will be forgiven." I think all verses follow this same drift (I stand under correction). So, it is the sinner who is atone for in regard to the sin committed, the sin itself is not yet "atoned." Does this bare any significance in the fact that "atonement" in its broadest sense is not complete at the sacrifice?

A. If the sinner is atoned, how do you propose that he gets his sin back? Is it the temple that comes up for review in the Adventist conception of the judgment or the person?

B. Have you found any text that says the sin is not atoned for? Have you found any text that says it is transferred TO THE TEMPLE?


I also thought of the verse in 2 Corinthians which states Jesus became sin for us. If you ever needed an example of the transfer of sin, you have it at Calvary. So, since we can see that sin is transferred somehow, it leads naturally to the question of how.The sins were transferred to the sacrifice. We all agree on that. You are suggesting they were transferred to the temple through the blood. The text never says that.





You disagree that the blood does not transfer sin, it only "makes holy." Like the point above, I think the blood does "make holy" the person it is shed for - as all your quoted texts prove. Is the blood itself now holy? Why does the priest sprinkle blood within the sanctuary? What significance does this hold if not to transfer sin?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.


Read for yourself, it says that anything the sin offering touches IS HOLY. The offering is MOST HOLY. It says the offering's blood is brought into the Tent of Meeting to make ATONEMENT, not to leave a record or transfer sins.

Again, you have no text that suggests this. You only say it must be that way. Why?


We see most clearly from three sources that the sanctuary itself needed atonement. Lev 16, Exodus 28:38 "the iniquity of the holy things," Hebrews 9:23 "the copies of the things in the heavens to be cleansed..." However sin defiles the sanctuary, it defiles the sanctuary, and it needs to be cleansed also. This happens on Yom Kippur when the sin of the sanctuary in regard to the impurities of Israel (the transferred sins) are totally atoned for, and the scapegoat has all of these sins confessed over him. He is then sent into the wilderness. Doesn't this signify the final atonement for sin itself? Sin now has no affiliation with Israel or the sanctuary once confessed over the scapegoat. Isn't this a two-fold atonement?It is the sin of the people, and again, the texts make clear where it comes from, how it got there etc. When the people sinned everything was defiled, the land, the sanctuary, them, everything.

The day of atonement, like the others, was a symbol of this cleansing.

Here are the texts again that describe how the sins got in the temple:

Lev 20:1 The LORD spoke to Moses, saying, 2 "Say to the people of Israel, Any one of the people of Israel or of the strangers who sojourn in Israel who gives any of his children to Molech shall surely be put to death. The people of the land shall stone him with stones. 3 I myself will set my face against that man and will cut him off from among his people, because he has given one of his children to Molech, to make my sanctuary unclean and to profane my holy name.


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.

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.


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.

So do you care to explain how the ones for which no sacrifice was offered got into the temple?


You raise a good point about sin defiling the sanctuary even with no sacrifice. This does seem strange. But doesn't this bring more problems to the table than it solves? Firstly, on the day of Atonement, the sin of the sanctuary in regard to the sins of Israel are atoned for - does this imply that the person who sinned (without sacrificing) is forgiven? Their sin would be atoned for also at Yom Kippur?! Secondly, why does the Sanctuary become defiled for an unconfessed sin? The sin unconfessed is still on the head of the sinner - nowhere in the Bible is a committed sin "shared" between two parties, as the texts you've quoted seems to convey. But, it says what it says: we should look into this further before throwing the baby out with the bathwater. The whole land was defiled. Daniel could say he shared in the sin of his people in his prayer of chapter 9. Isaiah said he was a man of unclean lips and lived among a PEOPLE of unclean lips.

God atoned for all the sin and defilement of the people.

But there is no baby to throw out. You have yet to show texts that uphold your position of confessed sin being transferred by blood.

Why have you not done this?




I don't want you to get discouraged over this. I think it should be enjoyable and seen as a challenge to really dig into these issues and uncover the Truth that is in Christ Jesus. As He said, "You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that testify about Me." John 5:39

Jon:)

Forgive me for not seeing this as enjoyable. I love study. But given the stakes here this is not fun.



P.S: Your second point is a bit easier to deal with, hopefully. I've studied some very solid evidence for that one, but we should deal with point 1 first.Deal with them in either order.

[tall73]

Keep digging. The rabbit hole runs really deep.:)

Well technically this EGW passage also shows her holding to the shut door, that the door of mercy was shut, and those who didn't see the IJ were cut off from salvation--but that is not our focus here.

[Jon0388g]

A. If the sinner is atoned, how do you propose that he gets his sin back?

Where did I state the sinner "gets his sin back"? The text clearly stated that the sinner is forgiven once the sacrifice is made.



B. Have you found any text that says the sin is not atoned for? Have you found any text that says it is transferred TO THE TEMPLE?

1. If the sin and the sinner were atoned for at the same instant, what is the purpose of the Day of Atonement?

2. There is no text that says "sin is transferred to the temple by the blood" to my knowledge. Does thie mean that we cannot logically deduce that this was so? WHY did the priest sprinkle the blood into the sanctuary then? You cannot say to make atonement for it, because this was only done at Yom Kippur.



The sins were transferred to the sacrifice. We all agree on that. You are suggesting they were transferred to the temple through the blood. The text never says that.




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.


Read for yourself, it says that anything the sin offering touches IS HOLY. The offering is MOST HOLY. It says the offering's blood is brought into the Tent of Meeting to make ATONEMENT, not to leave a record or transfer sins.

Here is a flaw in your reasoning: the text actually states whatever touches the flesh will become most holy, not the blood. There must be significance to this. Jesus became sin for us, but His body was still most holy.

It also says that whatever the blood gets splashed on must be washed - since when does something need washing if it is cleansed?

The blood and the flesh of the sin offering are clearly differentiated. The blood is also burned, after making atonement in the Holy.

I find no problems in this text.



Again, you have no text that suggests this. You only say it must be that way. Why?

The record of sins part is paralled from other parts of the Bible. We are judged according to our works, whether good or evil. Our words either justify us, or condemn us. An account is kept, this is not EGW, this is Biblical.

I know you know the broader parallels of the IJ/Yom Kippur - so I won't go into that.



It is the sin of the people, and again, the texts make clear where it comes from, how it got there etc. When the people sinned everything was defiled, the land, the sanctuary, them, everything.

The day of atonement, like the others, was a symbol of this cleansing.

Here are the texts again that describe how the sins got in the temple:

Lev 20:1 The LORD spoke to Moses, saying, 2 "Say to the people of Israel, Any one of the people of Israel or of the strangers who sojourn in Israel who gives any of his children to Molech shall surely be put to death. The people of the land shall stone him with stones. 3 I myself will set my face against that man and will cut him off from among his people, because he has given one of his children to Molech, to make my sanctuary unclean and to profane my holy name.


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.

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.


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.

So do you care to explain how the ones for which no sacrifice was offered got into the temple?

Like I said: But, it says what it says: we should look into this further before throwing the baby out with the bathwater.





The whole land was defiled. Daniel could say he shared in the sin of his people in his prayer of chapter 9. Isaiah said he was a man of unclean lips and lived among a PEOPLE of unclean lips.

God atoned for all the sin and defilement of the people.

But there is no baby to throw out. You have yet to show texts that uphold your position of confessed sin being transferred by blood.

Why have you not done this?

See above.

If atonement was completed at the sacrifice, why the need for Yom Kippur?

Jesus declared "It is finished" at the cross. He also declares "It is done" (Rev 21:6) when His tabernacle is among men. That is when all atonement is finished, for sin and sinner.


Jon

[tall73]

Where did I state the sinner "gets his sin back"? The text clearly stated that the sinner is forgiven once the sacrifice is made.

The traditional view holds that he gets it back if he doesn't make it in the judgment when his case is reviewed.



1. If the sin and the sinner were atoned for at the same instant, what is the purpose of the Day of Atonement? The same purpose as all the others--to point to the cleansing of Jesus.

But why don't you take what Hebrews says--a yearly reminder of sin.

Hebrews shows all the services being fulfilled by one sacrifice and one ministration.



2. There is no text that says "sin is transferred to the temple by the blood" to my knowledge. Does thie mean that we cannot logically deduce that this was so? WHY did the priest sprinkle the blood into the sanctuary then? You cannot say to make atonement for it, because this was only done at Yom Kippur.
I just quoted the text. Here it goes again:

Levt 6: 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.

What does the underlined portion say? Does this mean it made atonement for the person? For the sin? For the temple? Does it matter? You are saying it is ASSUMED, DEDUCED that the sprinkling was for a transfer. It never says that. You admit that. But it DOES say that the sprinkling was for atonement. Yet you seem to reject that out of hand.

Does that text say the blood is brought TO MAKE ATONEMENT?

Then that answers why it was brought. There is no need to deduce more because deducing more goes beyond the text, and reads in something the text didn't say. It does say atonement.



Here is a flaw in your reasoning: the text actually states whatever touches the flesh will become most holy, not the blood. There must be significance to this. Jesus became sin for us, but His body was still most holy. Ah, sorry, but the whole reason of mentioning that text is it covers both bases. Go back and Read Mrs. White's quote again from Sophia's first post. She readily admits that some sacrifices did not have blood going into the temple--therefore there could be no transfer that way. But how was it transferred according to her? By the priest eating the FLESH (which she fails to note was most holy, and caused things to be holy).


Here is the quote again so you don't have to go digging:

In some cases the blood was not taken into the holy place; but the flesh was then to be eaten by the priest, as Moses directed the sons of Aaron, saying: "God hath given it you to bear the iniquity of the congregation." Leviticus 10:17. Both ceremonies alike symbolized the transfer of the sin from the penitent to the sanctuary. {GC 418.1}


But the blood too is explained. It makes atonement.



It also says that whatever the blood gets splashed on must be washed - since when does something need washing if it is cleansed?

A. Are you suggesting those sins missed being transferred and get washed, not by Jesus but by a priest with a towel and some water?

B. It is because it is holy that it is not to be left in a common way splattered all over.



The blood and the flesh of the sin offering are clearly differentiated. The blood is also burned, after making atonement in the Holy.

I find no problems in this text.
That is because you don't understand Mrs. White's argument. The blood and flesh were for DIFFERENT sacrifices and both were necessary in her scheme for sins to be transferred.



The record of sins part is paralled from other parts of the Bible. We are judged according to our works, whether good or evil. Our words either justify us, or condemn us. An account is kept, this is not EGW, this is Biblical.
And those who are forgiven, do their evil works stand against them?

Or are they ATONED?

Psa 130:3 If you, O LORD, should mark iniquities, O Lord, who could stand? 4 But with you there is forgiveness, that you may be feared.



If atonement was completed at the sacrifice, why the need for Yom Kippur? They are symbols of the same sacrifice. Was Jesus offered more than once?

No.

He offered Himself once to die, then presented Himself in God's presence.


Jesus declared "It is finished" at the cross. He also declares "It is done" (Rev 21:6) when His tabernacle is among men. That is when all atonement is finished, for sin and sinner.


JonYes, redemption was already paid for. Men's acceptance of it happens at various times. The fulfillment happens at the end of time.

[a_ntv]

Point 1:

Does blood defile or does blood cleanse?

I am looking for evidence that blood defiles, as we have held, during the daily service, transferring the sins to the sanctuary.

It seems to me that the lamb, representing Christ, had the sins transferred to it, then died, covering over the sins, taking the sinner's place.

So...is there evidence that sin defile or transfers?

In the case of choice between two options is necessary to check if there are not other possible options:

The blood as the sigil of a covenent:

Ex 24:8 And Moses took the blood and threw it upon the people, and said, "Behold the blood of the covenant which the LORD has made with you in accordance with all these words."

The blood in the Temple was to re-live that covenant.

Luke 22:20 And likewise the cup after supper, saying, "This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.

The Eucharist is to re-live that covenant. Which one?

John 19:34 But one of the soldiers pierced his side with a spear, and at once there came out blood and water.

The blood by itself nor cleanse nor defile: it works because of the covenant

Sorry if I was OP

[tall73]

In the case of choice between two options is necessary to check if there are not other possible options:

The blood as the sigil of a covenent:

Ex 24:8 And Moses took the blood and threw it upon the people, and said, "Behold the blood of the covenant which the LORD has made with you in accordance with all these words."

The blood in the Temple was to re-live that covenant.

Luke 22:20 And likewise the cup after supper, saying, "This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.

The Eucharist is to re-live that covenant. Which one?

John 19:34 But one of the soldiers pierced his side with a spear, and at once there came out blood and water.

The blood by itself nor cleanse nor defile: it works because of the covenant

Sorry if I was OP

Good to see you a_ntv :)


See my later post on Hebrews which includes the covenant motiff.

Yes, the blood shedding was necessary for the covenant, both in the old and new. But part of the new covenant was that their sins were remembered no more which is antithetical to the idea of the blood serving as a record of confessed sin that will in some cases be placed back upon the offender.

Also the sprinkling motiff is used of cleansing even within Hebrews, in the case of the cleansing wtih sprinkling and washed with pure water, etc.

See also these couple of verses

Rev 7:14 I said to him, "Sir, you know." And he said to me, "These are the ones coming out of the great tribulation. They have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.

1Jo 1:7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin

.The reason the blood works is because of the covenant, and Christ acting as our substitute. However, the sanctuary does use imagery of blood atoning or the flesh making holy, or of cleansing, etc.

The question of this line of reasoning which may be totally foreign to where you