Investigative Judgment

[Ptilinopus]

Loveaboveall has referred to a number of Biblical texts concerning the satanic rebellion in heaven, and the casting out of Lucifer and his angels. One could take the time to go through the origin of sin, but unless it is requested, I think most of us know the scenario fairly well.

What I do not much hear discussed is the situation from the point of view of those angels who remained faithful to God. On what basis did they choose to remain faithful to God? It was not from knowledge, for the results of sin had never been manifested – at least not in their fulness. No-one had yet died. Disease was still an unknown concept. The peace and harmony of heaven was disrupted, yes. There was a polarization of opinion, yes. But the end results of choosing to worship oneself instead of the Creator were not yet made fully manifest.

From what we know of God’s character, He would have borne long with Lucifer – tried to win him and his following over. No doubt some angels wavered before committing themselves to one side or the other. But ultimately, all would have to make a choice based on faith. Follow a God they had always known and loved, or an exciting leader who promised adventure into self-aggrandizement. Isaiah 14:12-14 would in essence have been Lucifer’s challenge, his declaration of defiance.

Finally, “there was war in heaven” – and Lucifer and his followers were removed. Choices had been made, and the harmony of heaven was to be roiled no longer.

Jump down to just before the Second Coming. Jesus plans to return to take His saved sinners home to Heaven. A heaven from which sinning angels were expelled. The angels who by faith had chosen loyalty to God, and helped expel those sinning angels, must see unequivocally that ALL who are to be admitted to heaven, have just title to heaven – the “robe of righteousness” of Christ Himself. Does this not demand a judgment?

Not a judgment for the Lord to determine who is saved – “for the Lord knoweth them that are His” (2 Timothy 2:19). Not to for the Lord to judge who are lost – “he that believeth not is condemned already” (John 3:18). Since all have sinned, all already are lost, BUT for the intervention of Christ, and the acceptance of His sacrifice. No, the judgment is not for determining the lost or saved, but that the unfallen universe may have absolute certainty that all who enter heaven have just title.

Some will argue that God has no need to justify Himself to His Creatures. But God has already declared, “What do ye imagine against the LORD? he will make an utter end: affliction shall not rise up the second time.” (Nahum 1:9). If sin is never to rise again, through all eternity, then all inhabitants of the universe must be convinced of their own free will, that the avenue taken by Lucifer (and later the human race) is a dead end. And so, the first phase of an Investigative Judgment. God is sovereign, yes – but God is also just, and merciful.

But what does the Investigative Judgment have to do with the cleansing of the sanctuary?

Think about the sacrificial system. What was the point of the sin offerings, and sacrifices done on a daily basis? What was the procedure? The sinner brought his sin offering, confessed his sin over the head of the animal (commonly a lamb), and then slew it. The priest caught some of the blood in a bowl, and took it into the sanctuary to sprinkle some before the veil behind which was the ark of the covenant, and its mercy seat, symbolizing the presence of God.

In effect, the sin was transferred from the sinner, via the sacrifice, to the presence of God Himself, and the sinner went home, forgiven. This went on all year. The sinner was FORGIVEN. Salvation was his – based on His faith and acceptance that the Messiah, the Saviour, was to come, and die for him, symbolized by the sacrifice.

At Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement, one of the two goats chosen was sacrificed as a sin offering FOR THE TABERNACLE, the HOLY PLACE. (Leviticus 16:16,20). Why? To cleanse the sin which had been transferred to the presence of God. Thereafter, this sin was symbolically transferred from the sanctuary, confessed over the head of the other goat, the scapegoat, who was led into the wilderness to be abandoned till it died.

What is happening here in symbol? The sin offering, representing Christ’s sacrifice for us, His becoming SIN for us, meant His blood atoned for our sin, which was transferred to heaven, to the most holy place, the presence of God, who, though not responsible for the sin problem, voluntarily accepted to bear our sin and its guilt – its responsibility – that we might be saved. And Christ’s sacrfice makes this possible, His blood pays for our sin.

The day of atonement, then, must symbolize the removal of that accumulated sin, from God, the validation of Christ’s sacrifice for us, and the universally public demonstration that God is NOT responsible for sin, and the transfer of that sin to the one actually responsible – Satan. This implies the Investigative Judgment – which is also the heavenly Day of Atonement. Note too, that the Day of Atonement takes place AFTER the cross – AFTER forgiveness is assured, but BEFORE the Second Coming. The scapegoat event happened after the atonement was complete. Satan’s being bound takes place takes place AT/AFTER the Second Coming. Satan has no role in our salvation (the scape goat was not slain as a sacrifice – ever!) – this is more in the tying up of loose ends category.

So the Investigative Judgment has multiple facets – it is to test before the unfallen universe the validity of the choices made by the saved (God already knows who is saved); it is to satisfy the unfallen universe of God’s justice and mercy in admitting self-confessed sinners into a heaven from which sinners were expelled; and it is to demonstrate that the forgiven sin which has accumulated in God’s presence in heaven is in fact forgiven, and the responsibility to be placed where it belongs – on the author of sin.

So in Daniel 7, the panorama of history flows through to where a judgment is set and books are opened (vs 9-12), followed by the Second Coming (vs.13,14). And in Daniel 8, the same panorama of history (showing different aspects of events) leads to the “cleansing of the sanctuary” –the Day of Atonement – in vs 14. This judgment and the cleansing of the sanctuary are the same event, at the same time in history.

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

In effect, the sin was transferred from the sinner, via the sacrifice, to the presence of God Himself, and the sinner went home, forgiven. This went on all year. The sinner was FORGIVEN. Salvation was his – based on His faith and acceptance that the Messiah, the Saviour, was to come, and die for him, symbolized by the sacrifice.

This is totally wrong. Sin was never symbolized by blood, that is a symbol of life, the blood was mixed with water, water a common symbol used for cleaning. The cleansed life is offered to God in the tabernacle.

Did you know that the common idea that the person confessed their sins on the head is not found in the Bible except on the Day of Atonement scapegoat ceremony where the Priest confesses the sin of the camp on the head of the goat to be led out into the desert.

The person put his hands on the animal to be sacrificed, but that could be just to symbolize that this is the sacrifice for himself and his family, showing ownership and responsibility. But it does not necessarily indicate the person confessed their sins and they were transferred to the animal who transferred it to the sanctuary.

We have in a lot of ways read our own meaning into the Bible and by so doing we create concepts that were never there to begin with.

Of course the classic example is the Lucifer myth of Isaiah 14 Eze. 28
see:
http://newprotestants.com/LUCIFER.htm

 

[djconklin]

In effect, the sin was transferred from the sinner, via the sacrifice, to the presence of God Himself, and the sinner went home, forgiven. This went on all year. The sinner was FORGIVEN. Salvation was his – based on His faith and acceptance that the Messiah, the Saviour, was to come, and die for him, symbolized by the sacrifice.

This is totally wrong. Sin was never symbolized by blood

The quote does not say that "sin was symbolized by {the} blood." The blood was the vehicle by which the sinner's sin was transferred from the sacrifice to the temple.

 

[freeindeed2]

Free-will gives us the ability to judge God and that He is righteous and Just. Without this ability there would be sin again even after the devil is destroyed.

We are not to judge each other, but we are God's judge? Where is this in the Bible?

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

RC can you answer these questoions for me:

Why did God not destroy the devil and fallen angels when they sinned? Why allow them to bring sin into this world?

Why did God create a being that He knew would sin? Why not create beings that would not sin?

When you start answering these questions you realize that God, in effect, self-limited His power by creating beings with free-will.

No I can't answer those questions, I can speculate but really don't have enough information to make any kind of speculation about why He did what He did or did not do.

With free-will comes the ability for beings to disobey God. This was bound to happen because God creates everything perfect and He would not have created Lucifer if there was another way around it. Right?

The Lucifer reference is a myth based upon the writing of Origen and Jerome and Tertullian the context says nothing about Satan. Once you realize that the Lucifer myth was not part of Jewish or New Testament Christian belief you realize that you know very little about Satan. Even the verse in Rev. about war in heaven has had many interpretations through Christian history and they don't necessarily indicate the type of view that SDA's have come to accept. So there is another murky piece that we assign a concrete meaning.

The only way God could completely eradicate sin and still have beings that love Him out of choice is just the way He has done it. It required us to judge for ourselves that sin is not good and God is good and that we would rather love and obey God than sin. God loved us so much that He knew all of this before He created us but yet He still created us knowing the price it would cost.

As people we judge for ourselves whether we trust God or not, but that is far different from the idea of God being on trial. We make a decision to follow God or not, to trust God or not, but we are in no position to judge God. In fact we never could as all the information needed to actually judge God would be required to be revealed to us or the universe by God. If you don't trust Him then you won't believe the evidence He provides anyway. It would only be evidence from people who accept Him as being truthful and trustworthy in the first place.

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

DJ wrote:

The quote does not say that "sin was symbolized by {the} blood." The blood was the vehicle by which the sinner's sin was transferred from the sacrifice to the temple.

Again blood is not a symbol of tranfer material. So it does not matter if you pretend sin was just attached to the blood there is nothing in the Bible that says that sin was transferred into the temple. The cleansing on the Day of Atonement was for the sin of the Priest who ministered in the Temple.

 

[djconklin]

Quote:
The quote does not say that "sin was symbolized by {the} blood." The blood was the vehicle by which the sinner's sin was transferred from the sacrifice to the temple.
Again blood is not a symbol of tranfer material. So it does not matter if you pretend sin was just attached to the blood there is nothing in the Bible that says that sin was transferred into the temple.

Lev. 4:3 If the priest that is anointed do sin according to the sin of the people; then let him bring for his sin, which he hath sinned, a young bullock without blemish unto the LORD for a sin offering.

5 And the priest that is anointed shall take of the bullock's blood, and bring it to the tabernacle of the congregation:

6 And the priest shall dip his finger in the blood, and sprinkle of the blood seven times before the LORD, before the vail of the sanctuary.

25 And the priest shall take of the blood of the sin offering with his finger, and put it upon the horns of the altar of burnt offering, and shall pour out his blood at the bottom of the altar of burnt offering.

33 And he shall lay his hand upon the head of the sin offering, and slay it for a sin offering in the place where they kill the burnt offering.

34 And the priest shall take of the blood of the sin offering with his finger, and put it upon the horns of the altar of burnt offering, and shall pour out all the blood thereof at the bottom of the altar:

The cleansing on the Day of Atonement was for the sin of the Priest who ministered in the Temple.

Scripture please.

 

[Ptilinopus]

DJ wrote:

The cleansing on the Day of Atonement was for the sin of the Priest who ministered in the Temple.

Sorry RC - you haven't done your homework. Leviticus 16 records the sacrifices. A bullock was sacrificed for the Priest. Then the Lord's goat was sacrificed for the Tablernacle.

Lev.16:15,16 - "Then shall he kill the goat of the sin offering, that is for the people, and bring his blood within the vail, and do with that blood as he did with the blood of the bullock, and sprinkle it upon the mercy seat, and before the mercy seat: And he shall make an atonement for the holy place, because of the uncleanness of the children of Israel, and because of their transgressions in all their sins: and so shall he do for the tabernacle of the congregation, that remaineth among them in the midst of their uncleanness. "

The people's sins had been transferred to the sanctuary and the sanctuary required atonement.

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

well it is all tied together (and there are several sacrifices offered) of course but the one sinner we do know that goes into the sanctuary is the priest. So we should begin with what we know rather then begin with an assumption.

Heb 9:7
7 But only the high priest entered the inner room, and that only once a year, and never without blood, which he offered for himself and for the sins the people had committed in ignorance.
(NIV)


Lev 16:20-28
20 "When Aaron has finished making atonement for the Most Holy Place, the Tent of Meeting and the altar, he shall bring forward the live goat.
21 He is to lay both hands on the head of the live goat and confess over it all the wickedness and rebellion of the Israelites-- all their sins-- and put them on the goat's head. He shall send the goat away into the desert in the care of a man appointed for the task.
22 The goat will carry on itself all their sins to a solitary place; and the man shall release it in the desert.
23 "Then Aaron is to go into the Tent of Meeting and take off the linen garments he put on before he entered the Most Holy Place, and he is to leave them there.
24 He shall bathe himself with water in a holy place and put on his regular garments. Then he shall come out and sacrifice the burnt offering for himself and the burnt offering for the people, to make atonement for himself and for the people.
25 He shall also burn the fat of the sin offering on the altar.
26 "The man who releases the goat as a scapegoat must wash his clothes and bathe himself with water; afterward he may come into the camp.
27 The bull and the goat for the sin offerings, whose blood was brought into the Most Holy Place to make atonement, must be taken outside the camp; their hides, flesh and offal are to be burned up.
28 The man who burns them must wash his clothes and bathe himself with water; afterward he may come into the camp.
(NIV)

I should point out that the Daniel account has nothing at all to do with the day of atonement ritual. I am just pointing out that we have really read a lot into the ritual itself.

 

[Adventist Dissident]

i think the point that is trying to make is that In .....

Leviticus it is about the sins people -transfered to the tabernacle and then to the scape goat, that is what is being cleansed.

in Daniel it is the Beast and the little horn power. the little horn power is trampling the saints and the temple then the little horn power is dealt with. and the temple fixed.

those are 2 different problem the only think that ties those 2 passages together is the word cleasnes. in the oringinal they do not mean the same thing. The Denomination has already conceded this point.

 

[Loveaboveall]

We are not to judge each other, but we are God's judge? Where is this in the Bible?

Whether you like it or not you judge God everyday! There are 2 different meanings of "judge" and we can get confused easily. When Jesus says" Judge not, that ye be not judged." Matt 7:1 He is using the term judge in relation to judging yourself better than another person because you do not sin like they do, you can also try to judge a persons heart whether they are in a "saved" condition or not which both fall into the category of passing judgement on to someone when we are not authorized to do so. This is NOT the type of judging I am talking about.

Jesus also says later in the chapter how we are to apporpriately judge someone "Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them." Matt 7:20 This is a judging of a persons works. Not to cast judgement on their salvation but to cast judgement as to whether you should listen to what they say or not. This IS the type of judging that God has given us to the authority to do when we judge Him.

You do this everyday in many things you do. Each time you ask for forgiveness you have judged God that He is faithful to forgive you or why would you even ask? You may say that you are saved by the blood of Jesus; How do you know this except that you have judged God to be faithful and true and if He says something He will do it. You have judged God's works and know that He is not a liar.

During the IJ the whole universe is able to see God's works that He is just in saving one and not another. It is the works people are judging. You are very correct to say that we could never judge God's character or His "spirituality" if you will. This is not for us to do. What the universe is to do is use their free will to judge whether they believe God to be true and faithful and just and by doing so in effect they have vindicated God of any wrongdoing in this whole Great Controversy and there will never be sin again because we will have a reminder of sin for eternity; in the nail scarred hands and feet of or savior.

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

Icedragon wrote:

Leviticus it is about the sins people -transfered to the tabernacle and then to the scape goat, that is what is being cleansed.

That is only partially right. There is nothing in the Bible or in the Jewish tradition about sins being transferred to the tabernacle. Sins were indeed confessed on the scapegoat, the only time any transference of sins is ever mentioned. But that has nothing at all to do with the idea of sins being moved about from the sinner to the animal sacrifice to the temple to the priest to the scapegoat. All those transference's are speculated only that of the priest to the scapegoat is indicated. And that is really a symbolic method of removing sin from the community rather then any type of real transference of sin.

The key to understanding all this is to think about what sin is. It is the attitude of rebellion or selfishness. That is not something transferable, it would be pointless to transfer it. The scapegoat was symbolic of the act of forgiveness. See the following article
http://newprotestants.com/SCAPE1.htm

 

[Jon0388g]

As one who has many times be caught in the crossfire between those who have a pre- or post- fall understanding of Christ’s nature, I have a few observations to make, and a few thoughts to suggest. And in a way, this issue connects with the Investigative Judgment debate as well.

Part of the conflict of the human nature of Christ rises from a definition of sin. To hold that Christ had a post-fall human nature, and yet is without sin, requires a definition of sin which relies on choosing to commit sin. It demands that the only acceptable definition of sin is that in 1 John 3:4 – “sin is the transgression of the law”. Thus Christ’s major difference from the rest of us is that He did not break the law. Without exception (so far) those I have known who insist on the post-fall nature of Christ, also insist on this definition of sin. Above all, they cannot admit a definition of sin where it is inherited, or Christ would have been a sinner too.

It is in confronting this assertion that some have raised the question of newborn babies that die at birth – are they sinners? It is the question reductio ad absurdum which, if answered honestly, points up the validity or otherwise of this understanding. (And no, Doc, those who pose this question do not pose such questions as how many angels dance on the head of a pin – you are being absurd, my friend!) If a baby is NOT a sinner, and dies at birth, then what is it’s need for a Saviour? I have in fact been told that such babies are innocent and saved! (Even though “For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God.”) If a baby IS a sinner – in what way is it a sinner? The above definition, though valid in and of itself (ALL transgression of the law is indeed sin!), it is inadequate for discussing the human nature of Christ.

There are at least two other definitions of sin in Scripture. In Romans 14:23, Paul declares that “whatever is not of faith is sin”. And in James 4:17, “Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin.” Do these definitions help?

The James definition has the same shortcoming in this context as the 1 John definition. And the Romans definition likewise does not help, for while we might agree a baby does not have faith in the Biblical sense, that would apply to Christ as a baby as well.

The nearest I can come is when I consider 2 Corinthians 5:21 (“For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.”), in conjunction with several other concepts. Yes, Christ bore our sin and our sins. But in what way was He made sin for us? There is only one way I can see. It derives from Isaiah 59:2 – “But your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid his face from you, that he will not hear.”

Sin separates us from God. Every human being on this planet is born separated from God, and needs a reconciler, a redeemer – for none is righteous, not one. How are babies “sinners”, in need of a Savior? By being born alienated from God. Sinning is our natural bent, because we are all, from birth, self-focused, separated from God. “Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.” (Psalm 51:5). David didn’t mean his mother was a prostitute – he clearly meant he himself was formed in sin. True of all humankind - except Jesus.

Yes, Jesus was born with all the inherited physical weaknesses of thousands of years of sin. But of Jesus, the angel proclaimed in Luke 1:35, “And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.” Note Jesus is called “that holy thing” – a term used of no other being born on this planet. At no time from His conception was Jesus separate from the Father, until Gethsemane and Calvary.

As He assumed the weight of the guilt of the world, the sin of the world, and the Father withdrew His presence from Jesus, Christ indeed was made sin for us. No wonder He cried out, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?”

And here I believe is the definition of sin which can resolve this debate. Christ’s human nature was pre-fall IN THE SENSE THAT He was at no time separate from God. And because of this, He did not have the same tendencies to evil that we all have/develop. We have an indication of this also in Christ’s words in John 14:30, “for the prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me.” The devil could find nothing in Christ which would respond to him.

In all other senses, Christ has the nature of humankind after the fall.

I’ll try to link this to the Investigative Judgment in another post.

Thanks for your honest approach. I see where you are coming from, and this viewpoint always seems favourable when the other is absent, and vic verca - so I'm still 50-50.

Of course, the popular argument against this opinion is that Christ had an unfair advantage in His victory over sin. Thus, we have no hope in overcoming, and our acts of committing sin are inevitable.

What do you think?

Jon

 

[Loveaboveall]

Thanks for your honest approach. I see where you are coming from, and this viewpoint always seems favourable when the other is absent, and vic verca - so I'm still 50-50.

Of course, the popular argument against this opinion is that Christ had an unfair advantage in His victory over sin. Thus, we have no hope in overcoming, and our acts of committing sin are inevitable.

What do you think?

Jon

If Christ had an unfair advantage why does Paul go to the trouble of making it clear that He was tempted just like us?

"For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as [we are, yet] without sin." Hebrews 4:15

Jesus came not only to save us but also to be an example of humility so that we could understand what is necessary to become like Him in character. He humbled Himself completely, thus allowing the Holy Spirit to work through Him. This power is promised to us in Romans 8. We have disadvantage in that we have tasted sin and we like it or else we wouldn't do it! But the new covenant promises us Christ in us if we humble ourselves and allow Him access to our heart.

 

[Jon0388g]

If Christ had an unfair advantage why does Paul go to the trouble of making it clear that He was tempted just like us?

"For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as [we are, yet] without sin." Hebrews 4:15

Jesus came not only to save us but also to be an example of humility so that we could understand what is necessary to become like Him in character. He humbled Himself completely, thus allowing the Holy Spirit to work through Him. This power is promised to us in Romans 8. We have disadvantage in that we have tasted sin and we like it or else we wouldn't do it! But the new covenant promises us Christ in us if we humble ourselves and allow Him access to our heart.

That is my very point! Advocates of the "post-fall" nature of Christ will interpret this text as proof of His nature. He was tempted in all points as are we, but His incline was not toward sin, as the "pre-fall" advocates suggest.

This is why I feel that one-view or the other cannot win outright. The incarnation of the very God of Heaven in human form is something I feel we will be studying throughout all eternity.

As EGW says: "It will take all eternity to comprehend the science of redemption.."

Jon

 

[woobadooba]

That is my very point! Advocates of the "post-fall" nature of Christ will interpret this text as proof of His nature. He was tempted in all points as are we, but His incline was not toward sin, as the "pre-fall" advocates suggest.

This is why I feel that one-view or the other cannot win outright. The incarnation of the very God of Heaven in human form is something I feel we will be studying throughout all eternity.

As EGW says: "It will take all eternity to comprehend the science of redemption.."

Jon

One has to understand what Paul meant by 'sinful nature', and see if such a description fits the character of Christ before assuming that He had such a nature.

 

[NightEternal]

Bumping for Woob.

 

[djconklin]

There is nothing in the Bible or in the Jewish tradition about sins being transferred to the tabernacle.

The sin is transfered by virtue of the sins being confessed on the animal that was slain and their blood being taken into the Temple and sprinkled on the curtain between the Holy and the Most Holy.

The scapegoat was symbolic of the act of forgiveness.

That would make the scapegoat a symbol of our forgiveness of sin--but, the scapegoat is not "for the Lord" but something that opposed to or aganst the Lord.

 

[Jon0388g]

The sin is transfered by virtue of the sins being confessed on the animal that was slain and their blood being taken into the Temple and sprinkled on the curtain between the Holy and the Most Holy.

I have been considering this recently. There may not be any explicit text on the transfer of sin to the sanctuary, but see what you think of this:

"...if he does not tell it, then he will bear his guilt." Leviticus 5:1

"So it shall be when he becomes guilty in one of these, that he shall confess that in which he has sinned...So the priest shall make atonement on his behalf for his sin which he has committed, and it will be forgiven him." Leviticus 5:5, 10


Similarly,


"if the anointed priest sins so as to bring guilt on the people....for the sin he has committed." ... "...So the priest shall make atonement for them, and they will be forgiven." Leviticus 4:3, 20

And the pattern continues. Sin, guilt of sin, confession, guilt of sin forgiven.

In Leviticus 16, during Yom Kippur, we read

"He shall make atonement for the holy place, because of the impurities of the sons of Israel and because of their transgressions in regard to all their sins..." Leviticus 16:16

Not only did the holy things need atonement/cleansing, Inspiration says that it was because of the trangressions of Israel in regard to all their sins. This must be their sins throughout the year. The guilt of sin was forgiven at the altar, but accumulated in the sanctuary.


The sanctuary was an inanimate, lifeless object, yet, atonement was needed for it. Atonement is needed only where the guilt of sin exists.


Is it too large a leap of faith to say the sins of Israel where symbolically transferred to the tabernacle?


"Now you shall have this as a permanent statute, to make atonement for the sons of Israel for all their sins once every year..." Leviticus 16:34

Again, the distinction is made here between the instant forgiveness at the altar of sacrifice, compared to being "clean" from "all your sins" - and not only that, you are only pronounced "clean" at the end of the year. The sanctuary is cleansed, and so are the people.

Here is another text for consideration:


"Why did you not eat the sin offering at the holy place? For it is most holy, and He gave it to you to bear away the guilt of the congregation, to make atonement for them before the Lord. Behold, since its blood had not been brought inside, into the sanctuary, you should certainly have eaten it in the sanctuary, just as I commanded." Leviticus 10:17-18


I know Tall was not convinced by this passage, but in light of the idea of guilt being transferred to the sanctuary by confessed sin, I think it is the closest we have to airtight:


Not only is guilt being bore away from the congregation, but it is also emphasised that the sacrifice must be taken into the sanctuary.



Combine this with our other beliefs about good/bad works being recorded, judged out of the books etc, I believe we have the right picture.



Jon

 

[djconklin]

Thanx Jon for the good work!