scriptural evidence for the records of sins in the sanctuary

[OntheDL]

Tall has asked for the scriptures of the transfer of sins to the sanctuary. There is none that I know of.

He also asked for the evidence of the records of sins in the sanctuary.

Here is what the bible says.

Jer 17:1 The sin of Judah is written with a pen of iron, and with the point of a diamond: it is graven upon the table of their heart, and upon the horns of your altars;

Horns of the altars (both the altar of incense and altar of burnt offerings) are marked with blood from the sacrifices. It's recorded in Ex 29,30, Lev 4, 6, 8, 9, 16, Ez 43.

Look up these references and see if indeed the confessed sins are recorded by blood in the sanctuary.

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

The context is pretty clear and likely not talking about sins transferred to the temple.

As the Expositor's Bible Commentary says:

1 When Jeremiah says that Judah's sin is "engraved" on the people's hearts and on their altars with "an iron tool" or "a flint point," he means that their sin is indelible. Thus God's judgment is inescapable. Sin, especially idolatry, had become an integral part of Judah's life. It had been etched on their very natures and on their temple worship (cf. Exod 27:2). (The reference to "the horns of their altars" may be to the altars of Baal.) Iron tools were used in cutting inscriptions on stone (cf. Job 19:24). Ancient inscriptions almost defy the ravages of time, as the Hammurabi Stela, Moabite Stone, or the Behistun Inscription. The "horns of the altars" were the metal projections from the four corners. In the temple rituals sacrificial blood was sprinkled for expiation on the four horns of the altar (Lev 16:18). What a perversion to have sin ineradicably engraved on the heart where the new covenant belongs (31:31-34) and on the very places where solemn expiation was made for the sins of the people!

 

[OntheDL]

"Jeremiah 17:1-4
The sin of Judah (v. 1) is not their sinfulness, their proneness to sin, but their sinful practices, idolatry. This is written upon the tables of the hearts of them of Judah, i.e., stamped on them (cf. for this figure Proverbs 3:3; 7:3), and that deep and firmly. This is intimated by the writing with an iron pen and graving with a diamond. tsiporen, from tsaapar, scratch, used in Deuteronomy 21:12 for the nail of the finger, here of the point of the style or graving-iron, the diamond pencil which gravers use for carving in iron, steel, and stone.
(Note: Cf. Plinii hist. n. xxxvii. 15: crustae adamantis expetuntur a sculptoribus ferroque includuntur, nullam non duritiem ex facili excavantes.) shaamiyr, diamond, not emery as Boch. and Ros. supposed; cf. Ezekiel 3:9; Zechariah 7:12. The things last mentioned are so to be distributed that "on the table of their heart" shall belong to "written with a pen of iron," and "on the horns of their altars" to "with the point of a diamond grave."

The iron style was used only for writing or carving letters in a hard material, Job 19:24. If with it one wrote on tables, it was for the purpose of impressing the writing very deeply, so that it could not easily be effaced. The having of sin engraved upon the tables of the heart does not mean that a sense of unatoned sin could not be got rid of (Graf); for with a sense of sin we have here nothing to do, but with the deep and firm root sin has taken in the heart. To the tables of the heart as the inward seat of sin are opposed the horns of their altars (at "altars" the discourse is directly addressed to the Jews). By altars are generally understood idolatrous altars, partly because of the plural, "since the altar of Jahveh was but one," partly because of v. 2, where the altars in question are certainly those of the idols. But the first reason proves nothing, since the temple of the Lord itself contained two altars, on whose horns the blood of the sacrifice was sprinkled.
The blood of the sin-offering was put not merely on the altar of burnt-offering, but also on the horns of the altar of incense, Leviticus 4:7-8; 16:16. Nor is the second reason conclusive, since there is no difficulty in taking it to be the altars of Jahveh as defiled by idolatry. This, indeed, we must do, since Josiah had destroyed the altars of the false gods, whereas here the altars are spoken of as existing monuments of idolatry. The question, in how far the sin of Judah is ineffaceably engraven upon the horns of her altars, is variously answered by comm., and the answer depends on the view taken of v. 2, which is itself disputed. It is certainly wrong to join v. 2 as protasis with v. 3 as apodosis, for it is incompatible with the beginning of v. 3, haraariy. Ew. therefore proposes to attach "my mountain in the field" to v. 2, and to change haraariy into harªreey: upon the high hills, the mountains in the field-a manifest makeshift. Umbr. translates: As their children remember their altars...so will I my mountain in the field, thy possession...give for a prey; and makes out the sense to be: "in proportion to the strength and ineffaceableness of the impressions, such as are to be found in the children of idolatrous fathers, must be the severity of the consequent punishment from God." But if this were the force, then keen could not possibly be omitted before the apodosis; apart altogether from the suddenness of such a transition from the sins of the people (v. 1) to the sins of the children.
(from Keil and Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament: New Updated Edition, Electronic Database. Copyright © 1996 by Hendrickson Publishers, Inc.)

 

[tall73]

Note that I never said the temple was not defiled. It was. The question is whether it was by confessed sins through a sacrifice. There are plain texts that speak of the temple being defiled by sins, at the time of commission, without any sacrifice being referenced.

Here are the texts again on the defiling of the temple by the wicked acts of the children of Israel. Note these were so serious they usuall called for the death of the one committing the act, so there was no sacrifice made. Note particularly Ezekiel 5:8 where idolatry was said to defile the temple. It is a very similar passage to the above.

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.

 

[tall73]

As to your text, I am not sure if the reference is to the temple or the foreign altars. However, I think you get a better picture if you quote a larger section:


Jer 16:18 But first I will doubly repay their iniquity and their sin, because they have polluted my land with the carcasses of their detestable idols, and have filled my inheritance with their abominations."
Jer 16:19 O LORD, my strength and my stronghold, my refuge in the day of trouble, to you shall the nations come from the ends of the earth and say: "Our fathers have inherited nothing but lies, worthless things in which there is no profit.
Jer 16:20 Can man make for himself gods? Such are not gods!"
Jer 16:21 "Therefore, behold, I will make them know, this once I will make them know my power and my might, and they shall know that my name is the LORD."
Jer 17:1 "The sin of Judah is written with a pen of iron; with a point of diamond it is engraved on the tablet of their heart, and on the horns of their altars,
Jer 17:2 while their children remember their altars and their Asherim, beside every green tree and on the high hills,
Jer 17:3 O my mountain in the field, I will give thy substance and all thy treasures to the spoil, and thy high places for sin, throughout all thy borders.


The picture is one of being given over to idolatry, not to having confessed it and therefore transferred it to the temple. Under the law there was no sacrifice for idolatry that I am aware of.

Strangely the ESV has "their altars", but it looks like that is not what it says. The statement seems to be a direct address to Jerusalem, speaking of His (God's) mountain in the field, and giving up its treasures.

Clear references to pagan altars or idols appear in 16:18; 17:2 and 17:3.

I find the commentary in the article that DL posted a little strange, regarding Josiah's removal of the high places, since the text seems to indicate that they were quite present. But perhaps it is speaking of the whole time of Israel's sin. Anyone know what year this would be in, in relation to Josiah's reign? There were only two kings after him, one reigning for 3 months and the other for 11 years.

2Ki 23:36 Jehoiakim was twenty and five years old when he began to reign; and he reigned eleven years in Jerusalem. And his mother's name was Zebudah, the daughter of Pedaiah of Rumah.
2Ki 23:37 And he did that which was evil in the sight of the LORD, according to all that his fathers had done.

This seems to suggest that he again turned back to the idols Josiah had removed. Whether this text was before that time or not, I do not know.

I did find this reference to horns of the altar in the case of the false idol at Bethel:
Amo 3:14 That in the day that I shall visit the transgressions of Israel upon him I will also visit the altars of Bethel: and the horns of the altar shall be cut off, and fall to the ground. '

So it seems that this phrase, horns of the altar, applied not only to the Lord's altar but also to the false altar set up by Jeroboam in Bethel (and assumedly Dan also), and perhaps other pagan idols.

Also he again refers to the altars of the city here:
since there is no difficulty in taking it to be the altars of Jahveh as defiled by idolatry

So I guess in some ways from that contrast I would think it would more likely be the altars of the temple.

Either way, if it is the altars of the Lord it was referring to the defilement that comes directly from idolatry, not confessed sin, as Ezekiel 5:8 above in my previous post makes clear.

If it is the foreign idols, then the illustration also makes sense because the very presence of these idols was an offense.

What I don't see is how it could be a reference to confessed sin since they seemed to not be confessing their sin but continuing in it, and there was no offering for such a sin, but vengeance was promised. Nor is there any reference to transfer through sacrifice, as OntheDL noted, in other Scriptures.

 

[Jimlarmore]

I think after studying this that the text in Jer 17:1 makes a case for the blood being a transferring agent. Even in context the language seems to be talking about the temple of God. The only thing I am aware of being put upon the horns of the altar of God ceremonially was the blood of sacrificised animals killed for the priest's sins and the sins of the congregation. Think about why this was even done. Wasn't it to show a record of the stain of sin during the year if it was on the altar of incense?

Tall73 makes his case with texts like Ezek 5:8 and Number 19:11 that speaks of the sanctuary being defiled directly upon commission by the sins of Idolatry and other paganistic practices. Indeed this is one way for sins to be transferred as this suggests.

However, lets use some logic here. The day of atonement was for the people of God and His sanctuary. Idolatry or other paganistic abominations was most likely NOTbe sins that would be tolerated inside the camp of Israel at all. Like breaking the Sabbath it surely must have been a death sentence for anyone who practiced them openly. Biblically we know these sins was so detested by God that many nations were wiped out by Israel. IOW, to my way of thinking there had to be years where the day of atonement was performed when no idolatry or other paganistic sins per se' was commited by the people during their so-journ in the wilderness especially. Yet the sancturay had to be cleansed of sins once a year anyway. So how did those sins get there if that was the case?

Remember and analyze the ceremonies and what happens when something gets cleansed. The cleansing agent , what ever it is , gets defiled by the entity being taken away, ( like water when you wash your hands ). The hands get cleaned ,,the water gets dirty. Similarily, the blood gets defiled and shows a stain (record) on the horns of the altar and on the veil before the mercy seat of God. The sinner is forgiven and stands justified before the Lord. Logically, even though we can't prove it by texts the blood is an agent used to cleanse but in the process it gets defiled.

So who defiled the sanctuary in heaven so that it had to be cleansed? To me it had to our sin bearer Christ Himself, but the IJ is not for Him but for the angels and those in the unfallen worlds thru out the universe.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

 

[tall73]

I think after studying this that the text in Jer 17:1 makes a case for the blood being a transferring agent. Even in context the language seems to be talking about the temple of God. The only thing I am aware of being put upon the horns of the altar of God ceremonially was the blood of sacrificised animals killed for the priest's sins and the sins of the congregation. Think about why this was even done. Wasn't it to show a record of the stain of sin during the year if it was on the altar of incense?

Tall73 makes his case with texts like Ezek 5:8 and Number 19:11 that speaks of the sanctuary being defiled directly upon commission by the sins of Idolatry and other paganistic practices. Indeed this is one way for sins to be transferred as this suggests.

However, lets use some logic here. The day of atonement was for the people of God and His sanctuary. Idolatry or other paganistic abominations was most likely NOTbe sins that would be tolerated inside the camp of Israel at all. Like breaking the Sabbath it surely must have been a death sentence for anyone who practiced them openly. Biblically we know these sins was so detested by God that many nations were wiped out by Israel. IOW, to my way of thinking there had to be years where the day of atonement was performed when no idolatry or other paganistic sins per se' was commited by the people during their so-journ in the wilderness especially. Yet the sancturay had to be cleansed of sins once a year anyway. So how did those sins get there if that was the case?

Jim, the text specifically says it was the sin of idolatry being talked about. You analysis doesn't seem to be of this text but of the general pervasiveness of idolatry. But apart from that, how often do you think someone was murdered in Israel? The chances are quite slim a whole year passed without it.

It is also likely that a great number touched dead bodies but did not travel for ritual cleansing.

The point is there were a number of sins that defiled. I don't doubt either that all sin defiled the sanctuary, but not upon sacrifice, but upon commission. During the sacrifice the blood atoned, not recorded a record, according to the text.

Remember and analyze the ceremonies and what happens when something gets cleansed. The cleansing agent , what ever it is , gets defiled by the entity being taken away, ( like water when you wash your hands ). The hands get cleaned ,,the water gets dirty. Similarily, the blood gets defiled and shows a stain (record) on the horns of the altar and on the veil before the mercy seat of God. The sinner is forgiven and stands justified before the Lord. Logically, even though we can't prove it by texts the blood is an agent used to cleanse but in the process it gets defiled.

Then the same would happen when the blood cleanses on the day of atonement. But of course none of that is said in Scripture.

So who defiled the sanctuary in heaven so that it had to be cleansed? To me it had to our sin bearer Christ Himself, but the IJ is not for Him but for the angels and those in the unfallen worlds thru out the universe.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

If the parallel is followed it is the sin of the whole earth that defiles the heavenly temple, upon commission.

Once again Jim, if Jesus DIED for sins, paying our price, taking the penalty (death) that we deserved,why would there still be sins?

The wages of sin is death. He paid the wage. Those sins are all done collecting for those who make Him their substitute.

 

[Jimlarmore]

Jim, the text specifically says it was the sin of idolatry being talked about. You analysis doesn't seem to be of this text but of the general pervasiveness of idolatry. But apart from that, how often do you think someone was murdered in Israel? The chances are quite slim a whole year passed without it.

Again, we have to speculate either way we go with this. However, the text in Jer 17:1 specifically says the Sins are engraven on the horns of the altar and even though in context It is alluding to idolatry it was blood that was placed on the altar of incence in the daily and yearly ceremonies to remove sin from the sinners, priests, and congregation. So in this case it appears it can be inferred that blood was the staining and transferring agent for this sin of idolatry.

It is also likely that a great number touched dead bodies but did not travel for ritual cleansing.

Indeed every time they performed a sacrifice and processed the carcass they were touching a dead body, ritually defiling themselves with the sin that was just confessed over it. Remember the blood represented a death and you can't have a death without having a dead body.

The point is there were a number of sins that defiled. I don't doubt either that all sin defiled the sanctuary, but not upon sacrifice, but upon commission. During the sacrifice the blood atoned, not recorded a record, according to the text.

Then the same would happen when the blood cleanses on the day of atonement. But of course none of that is said in Scripture.

Neither do we find in scripture ( Exodus or Leviticus ) a clear connection to the messiah to be the blood atonement in the future in scripture but we are very willing to accept this truth to be self evident. If something cleanses it gets defiled in a sense because if you take away or bear the sin you now have it on you, but for some reason you can't seem to grasp that. This too should be self evident. Seems the main reason this is rejected is because of E.G. White. IOW, you are searching for scriptural reasons to reject her.

If the parallel is followed it is the sin of the whole earth that defiles the heavenly temple, upon commission.

The blood of Christ covers our sins and cleanses us from all unrighteousness as did the Lord's goat in the day of atonement but the final dispensation will not be realized until the Azazle goat is banished and that will happen after the thousand years.

Once again Jim, if Jesus DIED for sins, paying our price, taking the penalty (death) that we deserved,why would there still be sins?

The wages of sin is death. He paid the wage. Those sins are all done collecting for those who make Him their substitute.

If the Azazle goat is symbolic of satan and he is to receive an eternal banishment for all the sins of the camp ( spiritual Israel ) then they must be recorded in a record someplace. The great judgement of all time at the end of it all where every knee will bow and every tongue confess all of these sins will be placed on satan. I agree for those who are saved the covered sins are not to be counted against us.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

 

[tall73]

Again, we have to speculate either way we go with this. However, the text in Jer 17:1 specifically says the Sins are engraven on the horns of the altar and even though in context It is alluding to idolatry it was blood that was placed on the altar of incence in the daily and yearly ceremonies to remove sin from the sinners, priests, and congregation. So in this case it appears it can be inferred that blood was the staining and transferring agent for this sin of idolatry.

Jim, the texts I cited plainly showed how the sin of idolatry defiled the temple. And now when it says the altar is defiled by this sin you say it is through the sacrificial system. Yet there is no sacrifice for idolatry.

Num 25:4 And the LORD said unto Moses, Take all the heads of the people, and hang them up before the LORD against the sun, that the fierce anger of the LORD may be turned away from Israel.
Num 25:5 And Moses said unto the judges of Israel, Slay ye every one his men that were joined unto Baalpeor.

Deu 13:6 If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers;
Deu 13:7 Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth;
Deu 13:8 Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him:
Deu 13:9 But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people.

Indeed every time they performed a sacrifice and processed the carcass they were touching a dead body, ritually defiling themselves with the sin that was just confessed over it. Remember the blood represented a death and you can't have a death without having a dead body.

Except that this dead body represented Christ and it was "most holy"

Lev 6:25 Speak unto Aaron and to his sons, saying, This is the law of the sin offering: In the place where the burnt offering is killed shall the sin offering be killed before the LORD: it is most holy.
Lev 6:26 The priest that offereth it for sin shall eat it: in the holy place shall it be eaten, in the court of the tabernacle of the congregation.
Lev 6:27 Whatsoever shall touch the flesh thereof shall be holy: and when there is sprinkled of the blood thereof upon any garment, thou shalt wash that whereon it was sprinkled in the holy place.


Therefore your sttaement is not true.

Neither do we find in scripture....

are you actually saying then that the blood on the day of atonement would itself be defiled?

( Exodus or Leviticus ) a clear connection to the messiah to be the blood atonement in the future in scripture but we are very willing to accept this truth to be self evident.

We dont have to accept it as self evident as the book of Hebrews spells it out, and the such statements as "behold the Lamb of God" "this blood of the covenant" etc.

So why dismiss plain texts so that you can make a "logical" conclusion in these matters. The texts say how idolatry defiled, and it is not through sacrifice.

If something cleanses it gets defiled in a sense because if you take away or bear the sin you now have it on you, but for some reason you can't seem to grasp that. This too should be self evident. Seems the main reason this is rejected is because of E.G. White. IOW, you are searching for scriptural reasons to reject her.

A. Iti s not evidence because it doesn't say so. Nor are we dealing with water and dirt.

B. Are you maintaining then that on the day of atonement the blood that cleanses is defiled by cleansing? Are you maintaining that this blood is the last defiled thing in existence? (The blood of Christ). Are you furthere suggesting that what Christ's death did not accomplish--the removal of sin--IS accomplished by Satan taking on sin?

C. So rather than answer with texts you say I am just looking for a reason to get rid of Mrs. White. If biblical reasons are there to get rid of her than we better be getting rid of her soon. I am asking for evidence that what she, and the church, said are biblical. If you can't find it then why question my motives? It seems you are all about defending her whether you have a text or not. and it is not just that you don't have a text. You actually have plain texts that explain how the defilement happens that mentions nothing about sacrifices.

The blood of Christ covers our sins and cleanses us from all unrighteousness as did the Lord's goat in the day of atonement but the final dispensation will not be realized until the Azazle goat is banished and that will happen after the thousand years.

The goat is banished during or after the 1k years? And if total cleaning is not accomplished until the final judgment then wouldn't that be the day of atonement parallel and not the IJ? If you read others here they hold that the wilderness WAS Satan being in the barren earth for 1k years. This ignores the fact that the abyss was already around in Jesus' day, and was referenced earlier in Revelation. But more than that, you now delay it 1k years and apply it to the final judgment. That doesn't bode well for our pre-advent view. The IJ could NEVER be the total removal of sin, if that is what you are looking for, because it doesn't even deal with the wicked.

But instead what we see Hebrews saying is that Christ bought freedom from sin at His ascension. That forgiveness is there to reject or accept. It is at the final judgment that all sin is removed ,but He has already bought full atonement and applied His blood and its merits. He died, paid the price in full, and there is nothing more for Him to atone for. Now all that waits is the final judgment when sentance is carried out.

If the Azazle goat is symbolic of satan and he is to receive an eternal banishment for all the sins of the camp ( spiritual Israel ) then they must be recorded in a record someplace.

A sinful creature cannot bear the sin of another. And what is it that you feel is so great about Satan that his death atones but Jesus just stores up sin?

The great judgement of all time at the end of it all where every knee will bow and every tongue confess all of these sins will be placed on satan. I agree for those who are saved the covered sins are not to be counted against us.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

Jim, if Jesus paid the debt of death, why do you need Satan? Satan can do nothing but die for his own sin.

Those sins that Jesus died for are PAID.

Your logical inferrence goes against the plain texts about blood making atonement, the sin offering's flesh being holy, the defilment of sins not by sacrifice but by commission, etc.

 

[OntheDL]

The bible never speaks about anything pagan sacrifices in connection with the horns of the pagan altars.

The horns in the bible symbolizes God's power and deliverance. David saw the horns of the altar he sang God is the horn of my salvation, Psalm 18:2.

It's reasonable to speculate the Jer 17:1 text might refer to the pagan altars. But it's still speculation. There is still only one thing in the bible that's graven on the horns of altars: the bloody finger prints of the priests from the offerings to the Lord.

Graven: cut out or impressed.

 

[OntheDL]

Note that I never said the temple was not defiled. It was.

I know you didn't. I didn't question that.

The question is whether it was by confessed sins through a sacrifice. There are plain texts that speak of the temple being defiled by sins, at the time of commission, without any sacrifice being referenced.

Sin defiles the sanctuary. However only the confessed sins are recorded in the sanctuary. In the end, the sanctuary and the people are cleansed when the confessed sins are transfered to Azazel and the wicked with unconfessed sins are cut-off.

Regard to your question of sacrifice for the sin of idolatry...

Leviticus 4 covers all senarios for all kinds of people in terms of ignorant/innorcent sin. Sin is the transgression of the law. After the knowledge of sin (the sin became known), a sacrifice is made for it. I think that should cover the sin of idolatry.

 

[tall73]

I know you didn't. I didn't question that.

Sin defiles the sanctuary. However only the confessed sins are recorded in the sanctuary. In the end, the sanctuary and the people are cleansed when the confessed sins are transfered to Azazel and the wicked with unconfessed sins are cut-off.

It never says that "confessed" sins are recorded in the temple. Even this text does not say they are confessed. And again, the sin in this case was idolatry.

But let's say it was confessed. Confessed sin, as even you admitted in the other thread, is forgiven and atoned. So God would not be driving them out of the land for confessed sin. Rather this is unconfessed, continual, willful sin.

It defiles the sanctuary.

Confessed sin is NEVER said to defile the sanctuary, and that is the very point you are trying to prove.

Regard to your question of sacrifice for the sin of idolatry...

Leviticus 4 covers all senarios for all kinds of people in terms of ignorant/innorcent sin. Sin is the transgression of the law. After the knowledge of sin (the sin became known), a sacrifice is made for it. I think that should cover the sin of idolatry.

Notice the texts I posted in that regard. They were killed. No atonement was made:

Deu 13:6 If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers;
Deu 13:7 Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth;
Deu 13:8 Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him:
Deu 13:9 But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people.

There was no sacrifice for idolatry.

We do see some forgiveness of such a sin, such as in the case of Manasseh, just as we see forgiveness for David for murder and adultery. But there was no sacrifice. There was just repentance because there was no sacrifice for such. David said God did not desire sacrifice or he would bring it. But God accepted his repentant heart. Even this was grace. Usually they were slain.

 

[OntheDL]

It never says that "confessed" sins are recorded in the temple. Even this text does not say they are confessed. And again, the sin in this case was idolatry.

But let's say it was confessed. Confessed sin, as even you admitted in the other thread, is forgiven and atoned. So God would not be driving them out of the land for confessed sin. Rather this is unconfessed, continual, willful sin.

It defiles the sanctuary.

Confessed sin is NEVER said to defile the sanctuary, and that is the very point you are trying to prove.

You are mixing the two together. Our sanctuary doctrine never teaches only the confessed sins defile the sanctuary. However only the confessed sins are record therein since they were confessed/repented and recorded.

Notice the texts I posted in that regard. They were killed. No atonement was made:

Deu 13:6 If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers;
Deu 13:7 Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth;
Deu 13:8 Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him:
Deu 13:9 But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people.

There was no sacrifice for idolatry.

We do see some forgiveness of such a sin, such as in the case of Manasseh, just as we see forgiveness for David for murder and adultery. But there was no sacrifice. There was just repentance because there was no sacrifice for such. David said God did not desire sacrifice or he would bring it. But God accepted his repentant heart. Even this was grace. Usually they were slain.

We should note the willful intent, and intent to deceive in Deut 13 quotes.

There is no sacrifice for willful sins. David didn't make a sacrifice, because he knew before he committed those sins.

However Leviticus 4 is not specific on which commandment is transgressed. It covers all types of sins as long as it was a sin of ignorance/innorcence.

 

[tall73]

You are mixing the two together. Our sanctuary doctrine never teaches only the confessed sins defile the sanctuary. However only the confessed sins are record therein since they were confessed/repented and recorded.

I am not sure on the first part, having not seen EGW etc. quotes on the rest being defiled. Do you have some?

But the recorded part again you have yet to prove from the Bible.

The sins in this passage in Jeremiah doe not sound like confessed sins at all, or else they would not be kicked out of the land.

We should note the willful intent, and intent to deceive in Deut 13 quotes.

There is no sacrifice for willful sins. David didn't make a sacrifice, because he knew before he committed those sins.

However Leviticus 4 is not specific on which commandment is transgressed. It covers all types of sins as long as it was a sin of ignorance/innorcence.

Are you saying they built high places on every hill and worshipped at them ignorantly?

That sounds like a bit of a stretch.

 

[OntheDL]

I am not sure on the first part, having not seen EGW etc. quotes on the rest being defiled. Do you have some?

You can look up the incidences on EGW's quotes where sins defile the sanctuary. It is never said only the confessed sins.

But the recorded part again you have yet to prove from the Bible.

The sins in this passage in Jeremiah doe not sound like confessed sins at all, or else they would not be kicked out of the land.

Any willful sin is a repeat sin or with premeditation.

Are you saying they built high places on every hill and worshipped at them ignorantly?

That sounds like a bit of a stretch.

The sanctuary is not the only place of worship. Long before the sanctuary was ever set up, the patriarches built altars. The bible does not forbid building an altar and offer sacrifices during emergency.

The same way the majority of christians today worship on the idol sabbath unknowingly. When it came to their knowledge, repentance and offerings were made.

Lev 4 makes provision for EVERY kind of ignorant sin.

 

[tall73]

You can look up the incidences on EGW's quotes where sins defile the sanctuary. It is never said only the confessed sins.

If I look them up you will only say I am looking at the ones i want to.

The sanctuary is not the only place of worship. Long before the sanctuary was ever set up, the patriarches built altars. The bible does not forbid building an altar and offer sacrifices during emergency.

The same way the majority of christians today worship on the idol sabbath unknowingly. When it came to their knowledge, repentance and offerings were made.

Lev 4 makes provision for EVERY kind of ignorant sin.

As to it being alright to offer at other places, as in the days of the patriarchs:

LEV 17:1 The LORD said to Moses, 2 "Speak to Aaron and his sons and to all the Israelites and say to them: `This is what the LORD has commanded: 3 Any Israelite who sacrifices an ox, a lamb or a goat in the camp or outside of it 4 instead of bringing it to the entrance to the Tent of Meeting to present it as an offering to the LORD in front of the tabernacle of the LORD--that man shall be considered guilty of bloodshed; he has shed blood and must be cut off from his people. 5 This is so the Israelites will bring to the LORD the sacrifices they are now making in the open fields. They must bring them to the priest, that is, to the LORD, at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting and sacrifice them as fellowship offerings. 6 The priest is to sprinkle the blood against the altar of the LORD at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting and burn the fat as an aroma pleasing to the LORD. 7 They must no longer offer any of their sacrifices to the goat idols to whom they prostitute themselves. This is to be a lasting ordinance for them and for the generations to come.'

LEV 17:8 "Say to them: `Any Israelite or any alien living among them who offers a burnt offering or sacrifice 9 and does not bring it to the entrance to the Tent of Meeting to sacrifice it to the LORD--that man must be cut off from his people.

But more than that, in the passage in Jer. they were not worshipping the Lord there but idols.

The issue was not ignorance. If it were ignorance God would have already forgiven it. Instead He is driving them from the land.

 

[OntheDL]

As to it being alright to offer at other places, as in the days of the patriarchs:

LEV 17:8 "Say to them: `Any Israelite or any alien living among them who offers a burnt offering or sacrifice 9 and does not bring it to the entrance to the Tent of Meeting to sacrifice it to the LORD--that man must be cut off from his people.


But more than that, in the passage in Jer. they were not worshipping the Lord there but idols.

The bible does not forbid offerings made on the altars other than the one in the sanctuary.

There are many accounts of altars built and offerings made AFTER the sanctuary was instructed to Moses:

Reuben, Gad and Manasseh conducted ceremonies at their own altars, Josh 22.

Saul erected an altar before his army at Michmash, 1 Sam 13.

Gideon built an altar and called it Jehovah Shalom, Judges 6:26.

David built an altarat on the threshing floor of Araunah the Jebusite, 2 Sam 24, 1 Chron 21.

And Elijah built an altar on Mt. Carmel, 1 Kings 18, 19.

The altars besides the altar in the sanctuary demonstrated that God forbids the exclusiveness of Israel.

In the case of emergency, one could not make a sacrifice to the Lord if he was not physically able to go?

"How did a private high place differ from a public high place? In the laying on of hands (Lev 1:3), slaughtering on the north side (Lev 1:11), sprinkling the blood around the altar (Lev 1:5), the waving (Lev 14:12), and the bringing near (Lev 2:8). There was no meal-offering on the high place, the priestly service (Lev 17:6), the garments of ministry (Ex 28:43), the vessels of ministry (Num 4:12), the sweet smelling savor, the dividing-(red)-line for the sprinkling of blood (Ex 27:5), and the washing of hands and feet (Ex 30:20; 40:31ff). But they were alike in what concerned the time (morning and evening) of consuming the offerings, and the laws of Remnant for eating it (Ex 29:34; Lev 7:17), and what must be destroyed by burning, and of uncleanness in him that eats of the offering (Lev 7:20; 22:3)" ---Zebahim14:10.

These altars are called 'high places', 1 Sam 9:12, 1 Kings 3:4.

The point we are seeing here is there were other permitted altars which sacrifices could be offered. If you don't think the Devil could have used them to deceive the Israelites into worshipping the idols, just look at today's christiandom is deceived into worshipping on the counterfeit day.

The issue was not ignorance. If it were ignorance God would have already forgiven it. Instead He is driving them from the land.

After a sin is made known, there remains no more sacrifices for it. So the initial offences must have been there. And the Jer 17:1 text refers to the record of them, just as they were recorded by the pen of iron and a point of diamond: on their hearts and on the horns of the altars. There is no deny of these transgresions since for any willful sin, the transgressor knows it (on the heart) and God knows it (recorded in the sanctuary). Therefore they were driven out because of the repeated offences.

 

[tall73]

The bible does not forbid offerings made on the altars other than the one in the sanctuary.

There are many accounts of altars built and offerings made AFTER the sanctuary was instructed to Moses:

Reuben, Gad and Manasseh conducted ceremonies at their own altars, Josh 22.

Saul erected an altar before his army at Michmash, 1 Sam 13.

Gideon built an altar and called it Jehovah Shalom, Judges 6:26.

David built an altarat on the threshing floor of Araunah the Jebusite, 2 Sam 24, 1 Chron 21.

And Elijah built an altar on Mt. Carmel, 1 Kings 18, 19.

The altars besides the altar in the sanctuary demonstrated that God forbids the exclusiveness of Israel.

In the case of emergency, one could not make a sacrifice to the Lord if he was not physically able to go?

"How did a private high place differ from a public high place? In the laying on of hands (Lev 1:3), slaughtering on the north side (Lev 1:11), sprinkling the blood around the altar (Lev 1:5), the waving (Lev 14:12), and the bringing near (Lev 2:8). There was no meal-offering on the high place, the priestly service (Lev 17:6), the garments of ministry (Ex 28:43), the vessels of ministry (Num 4:12), the sweet smelling savor, the dividing-(red)-line for the sprinkling of blood (Ex 27:5), and the washing of hands and feet (Ex 30:20; 40:31ff). But they were alike in what concerned the time (morning and evening) of consuming the offerings, and the laws of Remnant for eating it (Ex 29:34; Lev 7:17), and what must be destroyed by burning, and of uncleanness in him that eats of the offering (Lev 7:20; 22:3)" ---Zebahim14:10.

These altars are called 'high places', 1 Sam 9:12, 1 Kings 3:4.

The point we are seeing here is there were other permitted altars which sacrifices could be offered.

Jos 22:22 "The Mighty One, God, the LORD! The Mighty One, God, the LORD! He knows; and let Israel itself know! If it was in rebellion or in breach of faith against the LORD, do not spare us today
Jos 22:23 for building an altar to turn away from following the LORD. Or if we did so to offer burnt offerings or grain offerings or peace offerings on it, may the LORD himself take vengeance.
Jos 22:24 No, but we did it from fear that in time to come your children might say to our children, 'What have you to do with the LORD, the God of Israel?
Jos 22:25 For the LORD has made the Jordan a boundary between us and you, you people of Reuben and people of Gad. You have no portion in the LORD.' So your children might make our children cease to worship the LORD.
Jos 22:26 Therefore we said, 'Let us now build an altar, not for burnt offering, nor for sacrifice,
Jos 22:27 but to be a witness between us and you, and between our generations after us, that we do perform the service of the LORD in his presence with our burnt offerings and sacrifices and peace offerings, so your children will not say to our children in time to come, "You have no portion in the LORD."'
The altar you referenced in Joshua was not one for offereings and was clealry argued not to be because they were aware of the prohibition of common people offering elsewhere.

As for Saul, he was not to offer them at all but to wait for Samuel who was the priest, who we see offering several times at Gilgal.

As yet the temple was not set up.

Notice this text regarding that fact in Solomon's time:

1KI 3:2 The people, however, were still sacrificing at the high places, because a temple had not yet been built for the Name of the LORD. 3 Solomon showed his love for the LORD by walking according to the statutes of his father David, except that he offered sacrifices and burned incense on the high places.




The others, with the exception of Elijah, fall into the same period of time.

In David's case it was at a request of a prophet and the place that he offered at became the very place of the temple mound.


In Elijah's case the Lord told him to set it up and the Lord Himself burned up the sacrifice. The whole kingdom had so turned to idolatry that Elijah was the only servant of the Lord who was willing to show up to even conduct it.

By the time of Jeremiah there had been a temple for some time for sacrifice and the high places had been destroyed more than once. It was clear that this was an ongoing sin of the people.

. If you don't think the Devil could have used them to deceive the Israelites into worshipping the idols, just look at today's christiandom is deceived into worshipping on the counterfeit day.

Worshipping God is not the same as worshipping idols.

After a sin is made known, there remains no more sacrifices for it. So the initial offences must have been there. And the Jer 17:1 text refers to the record of them, just as they were recorded by the pen of iron and a point of diamond: on their hearts and on the horns of the altars. There is no deny of these transgresions since for any willful sin, the transgressor knows it (on the heart) and God knows it (recorded in the sanctuary). Therefore they were driven out because of the repeated offences.

To say that it was just the initial references is completely unwarranted. The text is obviously referring to recent activity, and an ongoing , persistent history of activity. This activity had been reproved by prophet after prophet, of which Jeremiah was nearly the last, surviving to see the destruction of the city.


Idolatry very clearly defiled the temple apart from any sacrifice as the texts make plain. There is no reason to elaborate more than the text does, other than to try to fit a theory.

They had been practicing idolatry for years on end. And now the Lord was going to judge them.

Do you really think this warning was about ignorant sins, and that God would destroy them for ignorant sins already offered for?

Certainly not.

 

[OntheDL]

Jos 22:22 "The Mighty One, God, the LORD! The Mighty One, God, the LORD! He knows; and let Israel itself know! If it was in rebellion or in breach of faith against the LORD, do not spare us today
Jos 22:23 for building an altar to turn away from following the LORD. Or if we did so to offer burnt offerings or grain offerings or peace offerings on it, may the LORD himself take vengeance.
Jos 22:24 No, but we did it from fear that in time to come your children might say to our children, 'What have you to do with the LORD, the God of Israel?
Jos 22:25 For the LORD has made the Jordan a boundary between us and you, you people of Reuben and people of Gad. You have no portion in the LORD.' So your children might make our children cease to worship the LORD.
Jos 22:26 Therefore we said, 'Let us now build an altar, not for burnt offering, nor for sacrifice,
Jos 22:27 but to be a witness between us and you, and between our generations after us, that we do perform the service of the LORD in his presence with our burnt offerings and sacrifices and peace offerings, so your children will not say to our children in time to come, "You have no portion in the LORD."'
The altar you referenced in Joshua was not one for offereings and was clealry argued not to be because they were aware of the prohibition of common people offering elsewhere.

As for Saul, he was not to offer them at all but to wait for Samuel who was the priest, who we see offering several times at Gilgal.

As yet the temple was not set up.

Notice this text regarding that fact in Solomon's time:

1KI 3:2 The people, however, were still sacrificing at the high places, because a temple had not yet been built for the Name of the LORD. 3 Solomon showed his love for the LORD by walking according to the statutes of his father David, except that he offered sacrifices and burned incense on the high places.

The others, with the exception of Elijah, fall into the same period of time.

In David's case it was at a request of a prophet and the place that he offered at became the very place of the temple mound.


In Elijah's case the Lord told him to set it up and the Lord Himself burned up the sacrifice. The whole kingdom had so turned to idolatry that Elijah was the only servant of the Lord who was willing to show up to even conduct it.

By the time of Jeremiah there had been a temple for some time for sacrifice and the high places had been destroyed more than once. It was clear that this was an ongoing sin of the people.

The point is that the altars were allowed while the sanctuary was the official place of sacrifice. Regardless who built it and who made offerings. It was done to provide provisions for emergency.

To say that it was just the initial references is completely unwarranted. The text is obviously referring to recent activity, and an ongoing , persistent history of activity. This activity had been reproved by prophet after prophet, of which Jeremiah was nearly the last, surviving to see the destruction of the city.

Idolatry very clearly defiled the temple apart from any sacrifice as the texts make plain. There is no reason to elaborate more than the text does, other than to try to fit a theory.

They had been practicing idolatry for years on end. And now the Lord was going to judge them.

I never said the subsequent verses were refering to the initial offences. I was relating the sins written on the horns of altars to the bloody finger prints of the priests made in the sanctuary.

So by your logic, the Catholics knowingly worship the idols? In reality most of them don't know it.

You are arguing on points I don't deny. I'm trying to tell you these are the sins at one point they had confessed, made sacrifice. Jer 17 text points to their repeat offences.

Idolatry is a transgression of the law just as any other sins. The only sin that has no provision is the willful sin. Idolatry or not.

Do you really think this warning was about ignorant sins, and that God would destroy them for ignorant sins already offered for?

Certainly not.

There is no argument here. The dispute is that these sins had been repented therefore recorded before.

 

[tall73]

There is no argument here. The dispute is that these sins had been repented therefore recorded before.

He is not speaking of repented sin because He is still judging them for it. The record is of their continual sinfulness and worship of idols and is deeply engraved, making it nearly impossible to remove because they are not repentant. That is the whole point if it being engraved with a metal instrument. Certainly you do not believe that the blood was applied with a metal instrument. It was an illustration of the deep nature of their sin, which the texts say defile the sanctuary without sacrifice even being made.